Full text of "The four Gospels;"

See other formats

ΣΏΣΗ ΜΕ
SUH Μ
ΛΗ ΓΗ͂Σ

ΗΜ

Hate ie

NUNC COGNOSCO EX PARTE

és

wesw

TRENT ΙΝ ΕΚ
LIBRARY

PRESENTED BY

Canon W.T. Newby

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2019 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/fourgospelsOO00stre

THE FOUR GOSPELS

A STUDY OF ORIGINS

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK + BOSTON - CHICAGO - DALLAS
ATLANTA + SAN FRANCISCO

MACMILLAN ἃ CO., Lrmtep
LONDON + BOMBAY + CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Li.
TORONTO

THE FOUR GOSPELS
A STUDY OF ORIGINS

TREATING OF

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION,
SOURCES, AUTHORSHIP, & DATES

BURNETT HILLMAN STREETER
Hon. D.D. Evin.
FELLOW OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD ; CANON OF HEREFORD

EDITOR OF ‘ FOUNDATIONS, ‘CONCERNING PRAYER, ‘IMMORTALITY’
‘THE SPIRIT, ‘GOD AND THE STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE’
AUTHOR OF ‘RESTATEMENT AND REUNION ”
CONTRIBUTOR TO ‘OXFORD STUDIES IN THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM ”
JOINT-AUTHOR OF ‘THE SADHU’

New York
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1925

«ες Ae π᾿ γος te

Copyricut, 1925,
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED, JANUARY. 1925.

Printed in the United States of America by
WYNKOOP HALLENBECK CRAWFORD CO., NEW YORK

$n Memoriam

GULIELMI SANDAY, S.T.P.

INSIGNISSIMI APUD OXONIENSES
HORUM STUDIORUM FAUTORIS

446440

The inquiry of truth, which is the love-makin
knowledge of truth, which is the presence of it;
which is the enjoying of it—is the sovereign good of

8 Or wooing of it; the
and the belief in truth,
human nature.

Bacon,

Quis nescit primam esse _historiae legem ne quid f

alsi dicere audeat.
deinde ne quid veri non audeat.

CICERO.

Men disparage not Antiquity, who prudently exalt new Enquiries.

Sir Tuomas Browne,

ATA HA
eviews” bret" basenor) owt" yt Τω88 one nil deal 95 ἃ
bast “O61” τοῦ ;"O08I” bags “00ES” τοὶ δι baa bi ἢ δὲ ἢ a :
“ὍΠ0Ε᾽ τοῦ a ΓΕΥῚ

θα δὴ γχ01] pen, εν ΩΝ ποῦ ὃ baa ἃ pated". AE

ἽΣΕΤΗΥ. best “Si ITV At" met
fet diseni “ixst” odie “δὶ «δῷ,
ΩΝ “oliscinos? beashes mi” seoqemett ptoatoot

᾿ BESO oot “muon” τοῦ ὦ Οἱ
Tar Ξκικοτει Foun . qr’ besr “pr aot 9 bua ii atk.
᾽ eroe he ἧς , τοῖ & rf

"oO
Ξ,
ae

᾿ ANY
Sud ἔς ΔῈ aM hoon *s ἼΠΣ AM” οἱ 3

| ., ᾿ Roe oid κα ον gr ve mate aes
Stat meer asicked cocce wr ἀψῷ, ow Ὦ τ te

soiwt ὧξ TEX 7’ Hy .1.1 "τοῦ
iia ἐν: eri ἽΠΥ ΧΗ τὶ

ἕω.

86 Κι
alee

i
a
ἕ
ek
ae ἃ ὦ ἃ

ed
= ΞΘ ἃ ως,

ὑπ “ὦ.

ἘΞΕΞΕΞ ΕΊΣ,
babasa

ERRATA

p. 29, last line, also p. 45,1. 1, for ‘‘two thousand” read ‘twelve
hundred.”
oe 33, ll. 14 and 16, for “2300” read “1300”; for “1500” read
1300.”

p. 48, 1. 19, for “2000” read “1200.”

p. 56, ll. 5 and 6, for “£1913” read 1923”; for ““E. Maunde”
read “ Herbert.”

p. 69, 1. 6, for “Lk. VII. 13” read “Lk. VIII. 13.”

p. 78, 1. 18, after “text” insert “of Luke.”

p. 79, footnote, transpose “in reduced facsimile” and “with
Mark.”
. 91, 1. 6, for “from” read ‘‘for.’”’
. 116, ll. 4 and 6, for “7@” read ‘“‘r7.”
. 140, 1. 28, for “six” read “‘seven.”’
» L70,1.23, for)“ XT Vr read XT”
. 174, 1. 14, for “VII. 32-34” read ‘VIII. 22-26.”
. 196, footnote, for “Mk. XIII. 4” read “Mk. IV. 23, but.”
. 209, 1. 9, read “from Lk. XXII. 14” after “story.”
. 214, last line, read ‘‘clearly non-Marcan”’ before “Call off.”
. 254, 1. 26, for “Mt. X. 86-38” read “Mt. X. 26-38.”
. 255, 1. 25, for “‘If we choose the latter” read ‘‘We should
also have to say.”

p. 258, footnote, for “Lk. VII. 30” read “Lk. XII. 30,” twice.

p. 259, 1. 3, for “XVIII. 17” read “XVIII. 18.”

p. 263, 1. 12, for “36-39” read “26-39.”

p. 278, 1. 10, insert ‘XVII. 22-37.

p. 280, 1. 20, for “in Mark” read “in Matthew.”

“ “footnote, for “Mt.” read ‘ Mk.”

p. 287, footnote, for ‘XVI. 17” read “XVI. 16.”

p. 349, ll. 9 and 15, for “Jesus” read “‘Joses”; for ‘‘Shorter”
read ‘‘ Longer.”

p. 415, 1. 26, for “X XVII” read “XXVIII.”

p. 416, 1. 12, for “ΣΧ ΧΊ read ‘ XXTIT.”

p. 425, footnote, for “X XVII” read “‘X XVI.”

p. 440, 1. 1, for “witness” read ‘‘ writer.”

p. 464, 1. 3, for “fulfilment” read ‘‘non-fulfilment.”

p. 476, 1. 22, for ‘‘agreed” read “argued.”

p. 504, 1. 23, for ‘‘Di-drachmae” read “drachmae.”

p. 562, 1. 2, for “‘Memories” read ‘‘ Memoirs.”

Ὁ Ὁ Ὁ Ὁ For FS Sits,

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

THE SELECTED Four

SxetcH Map (showing chief places mentioned in this book) .

PART I.—THE MANUSORIPT TRADITION

DiagraMs—(I.) Toe Tuzory or “Locat Texts”; (11) West-

cort AND Hort’s THEORY

CHAPTER II

LocaL AND STANDARD TEXTS

CHAPTER III

THe ΤΈΧΤΒ oF THE GREAT SEES

CHAPTER IV

Tue Korriverat MS. anp THE TExT OF CAESAREA
TaBLE—TueE MSS. anp THE Loca ΤΈΧΤΥΒ

CHAPTER V

Tue Revis—D VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY .

CHAPTER VI

INTERPOLATION AND ASSIMILATION
vii

PAGE

77
108

109

129

viii THE FOUR GOSPELS

PART I]L—THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

DIaGRAM—THE SYNOPTICS AND THEIR SOURCES

CHAPTER VII

THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION

AppitionaL Norrs—Owmissions FROM MARK: PARALLELS
or ΜΑΤΤΗΒῪ AND LUKE: PAssaGkES PECULIAR TO MaTTHEW
AND LUKE

CHAPTER VIII

Proto-Luke
ADDITIONAL NotE—PassaGES ASSIGNED TO Proto-LUKE

CHAPTER IX

A Four Document HyporTHeEsis

CHAPTER X

THe RECONSTRUCTION oF Ὁ
(Passages assigned to Q)

CHAPTER XI
THe Minor AGREEMENTS OF MatTHEW AND LUKE
List oF PARABLES

CHAPTER XII

Tue Lost Enp or Mark

PART IIIL—THE FOURTH GOSPEL

CHAPTER XIII

Joun, Mystic anD PROPHET

CHAPTER XIV

JOHN AND THE SyYNOPTICS

PAGE

150

151

195

199
222

223

333

363

393

(Parallels of Mark and John) : : : . 398 "

CONTENTS

CHAPTER XV

THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP .

CHAPTER XVI

An Otp Man’s FAREWELL

PART IV.—SYNOPTIC ORIGINS
CHAPTER XVII

DatE anp LocaL ΟΒΙΘῚΝ oF MarRK and MatTTHEew
AppITIoNAL NotE—THE Date oF 1 CLEMENT
CHAPTER XVIII

ΠΥ ΚΕ AnD Acts

APPENDICES

I. THe ΟΒΙΘΙΝ ΟΕ Various READINGS
11. Tue Text or tHe O Faniiy
Ill. Toe Text or ΟΕΙΘῈΝ on MattrHew

IV. JEROME AND THE CopDEX SINAITICUS

INDICES

Inpex or MSS, (with dates and von Soden’s notition)
InpDEx oF SuBJEctTs
InDEX OF PROPER NAMES

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

ΙΧ

PAGE

427

463

485
527

529

565
572
585
590

601
607
611
615

.
ἡ
ἱ ἘΣ τὸ ᾿
ee ΜᾺ, Neches eave
+ ewes ΝΜ ak
, ἐς yo a. Le , Fl Ms
: ; μ δ. ἄν Weald oud
‘ We - 7 »» ΚΕ ᾿
ΤῸ | ω ‘ae
‘ : a, ‘ Ν ‘ ᾿ tebe»
rw ΕἾ ΤῊΝ τὰς .ἱ kev Afi ve
"ΠῚ v annie
} ἡ » ; - a
wanted eae ἄχ ae © seta wane
wa) ἢ sve εαῇ..» ξ ΝΑΡῚ “Δ᾽
ὦ ἕν ᾿ " :
‘ anal \. ! ᾿
TOR MSTA
ASAI RR ie:
"γιό » 7 AS ie
᾿ ΕἾ ΩΝ γ {dite
f ‘ ὦ ra ἐν Ἵ
δὶ up ΡΟ een 3 tame ἈΝ
a ae enw rae. vo νὰ aed δ
Seren: we enon wf ae re
os ;
a cap

INTRODUCTION

THE obscurity, commonly supposed to veil the origin of the
Gospels, is due not so much to the scantiness of the evidence
available as to the difficulty of focussing on this one point
the fresh evidence which has been accumulated during the
last half-century. Students in various specialised branches of
research, such as textual criticism, source-analysis, the cultural
background of the early Church, and the psychology of Mysti-
cism, have worked at these subjects more or less in isolation ;
and without intensive specialisation the advance made would
have been impossible. But the time is now ripe for an attempt
to co-ordinate the results reached—so far as they bear on the
origin of the Gospels—and see them in their true relation in
a single organic process of historical evolution. In this volume
I have set out some researches of my own in two of these fields
of study, which, I believe, throw new light on certain aspects
of the problem; but my main aim has been that co-ordination
of the results achieved along different lines of investigation
which, by using these to illuminate and consolidate one another,
provides a basis for further conclusions.

In the writing of the book I have had in view readers of
three quite different kinds. (1) There is the educated layman
who is sufficiently interested in the origin of the Gospels, the
manuscript authority for their text, the sources of information
possessed by their authors, and in the relation of the mystical
to the historical elements in the Fourth Gospel, to undertake a

piece of rather solid reading—provided that the book can be
xi

ΧΙ THE FOUR GOSPELS

understood without any previous technical knowledge. (2) I
have had in mind the divinity student or minister of religion who
desires an introduction to Textual Criticism, to the Synoptic
Problem, and the Johannine question, but who does not know of
any book which takes cognisance of the MS. discoveries, and light
from other directions, which have become available in the
last few years. (3) I desire to submit to the judgement of
expert scholars the results of my own original research.

Accordingly I have endeavoured, wherever possible, to arrange
the material in such a way that the argument and the nature of
the evidence shall be clear to a reader who is unacquainted with
Greek; and I have relegated to footnotes matter with which
the general reader (or the divinity student on a first reading)
can afford to dispense ; I have also been at considerable pains to
present a clear outline of the argument in the Synopsis at the
head of each chapter, and in the Diagrams at the beginning of
Parts I. and II. The reader to whom the whole subject is
quite new would perhaps do well, at the first reading, to omit
Ch. ΠΙ.-ΥἹ., VIII.-XII. and XIV.

The expert will, I believe, find in every chapter suggestions
which, whatever their value, have not previously been put for-
ward ; but the most original conclusion, and perhaps the most
important, is the identification of the text found in the new
Koridethi MS. ©, and its allies, with the text in use at Caesarea
about a.p. 230. This identification supplies, as it were, the
coping stone of the arch in that reconstruction of the various
local texts of the Gospels current in the early Church at which
scholars have been working for a generation ; it also leads on to
@ new conception of the history of the text during the first
three centuries—differing as much from that held by Westcott
and Hort as from the more recent view put forward by von
Soden. The result is materially to broaden the basis of early
evidence for the recovery of an authentic text.

The Synoptic Problem is another large issue in regard to
which I have attempted to break new ground. While accepting,

INTRODUCTION xiii

and indeed further consolidating, the received theory that Mark
was one of the sources made use of by Matthew and Luke, I
adventure a new approach towards the question of their other
sources. Here, from the nature of the case, evidence of a
demonstrative character is not forthcoming. Nevertheless,
partly by bringing to bear on this problem results gained in the
field of textual criticism, partly by considering anew the nature
of parallelism in oral tradition and the probable connection
of our Gospels, and also of their sources, with definite localities,
I reach conclusions which seem to be sufficiently probable to
justify my submitting them—under the conceptions of “ Proto-
Luke” and “A Four Document Hypothesis ’’—to the serious
consideration of students. If correct, these conclusions are
important, as enhancing our estimate of the historical value of
much of the material which is preserved by Matthew or Luke
only. I have also, I hope—by a new use of the MS. evidence
available—finally disposed of the troublesome phantom of an
**Ur-Marcus”’ (or earlier version of Mark) which has for too
long haunted the minds of scholars.

The problem of the Fourth Gospel must, I am convinced, be
approached from two sides. The results of historical and source
criticism must be supplemented and interpreted in the light of a
study of the psychology of the mystic mind. This done, the
question of its authorship can be profitably discussed. My
conclusions in regard to this Gospel are avowedly of a tentative
character, and it is as a personal impression only that I put
forward Part III. of this book. I feel sure, however, that, even
if the conclusions reached are in some points erroneous, the
method of approach is sound.

The questions treated of in Parts II. and III. cannot be
considered entirely in isolation and apart from some considera-
tion of the evidence as to the early circulation of the Gospels
and their collection into a Canon of inspired writings; accord-
ingly I begin with a chapter, “The Selected Four,” summarising
as briefly as possible the main facts bearing on this point. And

ΧΙΥ͂ THE FOUR GOSPELS

I conclude in Part IV.—on the basis of the results reached in
the previous sections of the book—with an endeavour to deter-
mine more exactly the dates and place of writing of the first
three Gospels, and also to dispose of the difficulties still felt by
some scholars in accepting the Lucan authorship of the Third
Gospel and the Acts.

I should perhaps add that I have refrained from discussing
recent attempts to reach by critical analysis the sources used
by Mark; brilliant as some of these are, for reasons of the
kind indicated p. 378 ff., they leave me unconvinced. I have
also ventured to ignore many interesting theories, even though
put forward by eminent scholars, which seem to me to have
been adequately refuted by other writers. Very few dead
hypotheses deserve the honour of a monument.

The Bibliographies in Moffatt’s Introduction to the N.T. and
for textual criticism—in Gregory’s Teatkritik are so excellent
and so well known that I early abandoned the idea of com-
piling one of my own, thinking it would be of more practical
utility to supplement these by references in the notes to the
best, or the most accessible, authority on each particular point
as it arose.

I have to acknowledge gratefully assistance received from
various friends—in particular from Dr. R. P. Blake of Harvard,
Prof. Burkitt of Cambridge, Prof. Dodd of Mansfield College,
Oxford, Miss Earp of Cumnor, and Archdeacon Lilley of Hereford,
in careful reading of the proofs; to all of these I owe valuable
suggestions. I have to thank Mrs. V. J. Brook of Oxford, for
very great help in working out points of textual evidence,
verifying references, and compiling Tables ; the Rev. J. 5.
Bezzant, Vice-Principal of Ripon Hall, Oxford, and the Rev.
R. D. Richardson; for the compilation of the Indices, and Mr.
Norman Ault for drawing the Diagrams and Map.

B. H. STREETER.
Oxrorp, Sept. 1924.

I
THE SELECTED FOUR

SYNOPSIS

THE ΙΡΕΑ or A NEw TESTAMENT

The circulation of Gnostic Gospel and Acts and the still more
dangerous competition of a compact New Testament put out by
the semi-Gnostic Marcion forced the Church in self-defence to assign
an exclusive canonical authority—not inferior to that heretofore
ascribed to the Old Testament—to those older lives of Christ which
it regarded as specially authentic. Thus ὁ. a.p. 180 we find the
Four Gospel Canon firmly established.

LocaL GosPELs

But a variety of considerations suggest that originally the Gospels
were local Gospels circulated separately, and authoritative only in
certain areas. The tradition which assigns Mark to Rome and John
to Ephesus may safely be accepted. That connecting Luke with
Achaea (i.e. Greece) and Matthew with Palestine is perhaps no more
than conjecture ; Matthew may with greater probability be connected
with Antioch.

The destruction of Jerusalem a.p. 70 deprived the Church of its
natural centre. The capitals of the larger provinces of the Roman
Empire succeeded to the place left vacant; and among these the
tradition οἱ Apostolic foundation gave special prestige to Antioch,
Ephesus, and Rome. The result was a period of about eighty years
of more or less independent development, in doctrinal emphasis,
in church organisation, and in the production of religious literature.
Hence the history of the three succeeding centuries of Catholic
Christianity is largely the story of a progressive standardisation of a
diversity which had its roots in this period. The delimitation of the
Four Gospel Canon was the first step in this process.

1 B

2 THE FOUR GOSPELS

Tue TwiticHt PERIop

The dearth of early Christian literature outside the New Testa-
ment makes the eighty years after a.pD. 64 the most obscure in the
whole history of the Church. Hence the importance of supplement-
ing the scanty evidence as to the existence and circulation of the
Gospels during this period by the results of that critical comparison
of the Gospels themselves which leads up to the identification of the
sources used by their authors. Not infrequently, by bringing the
external literary evidence into relation with the results of source-
criticism, an unexpected degree of precision and definiteness can be
reached. This point illustrated by examples bearing upon the
evidence as to the early circulation of each of the four Gospels—a
new interpretation being suggested of the evidence of Papias in
regard to Matthew.

SourcE AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Why these are important to the historian. The study of them
can be made interesting, if approached from the right standpoint.
Analogy between the method of these investigations and that of
the science of Geology.

CHAPTER I
THE SELECTED FOUR

Tue IpEA oF A New TESTAMENT

THE primitive Church had all the advantages, without any of
the disadvantages, of an authoritative collection of sacred books.
Some temperaments are attracted by the idea of novelty, others
by the appeal of an immemorial antiquity. The early Church
could provide for both. Only yesterday, it taught, under Pontius
Pilate, God had sent His Son to die for man; but this recent
event was but the culminating point of an eternal purpose
revealed to man by a line of Prophets in a sacred literature of
prodigious age. On the one hand the Gospel was preached as a
new salvation ; on the other—the point is elaborated in all the
early defences of Christianity \—its truth was demonstrated by
the exact conformity of events in the life of Christ to what
had been foretold by writers of an antiquity immensely greater
than the poets, philosophers and historians of the Greeks. Yet,
though the Church had the advantage of resting on a basis of
ancient revelation, its free development was not, as has so often
happened in religious history, fettered by its past. For with
the coming of the Messiah the Law of Moses, to the Jews the most
inspired portion of the whole Old Testament, was ‘abrogated to
a large extent—though exactly to what extent was a matter
of much controversy—and while the Church of Christ was

1 Cf. Theophilus (a.p. 180), Ad Autolycum, iii. 20, “The Hebrews . . . from

whom we have those sacred books which are older than all authors,”
3

4 THE FOUR GOSPELS CHAP.

understood to be in a sense identical with the “‘ Church in the
wilderness,” ! it was no less clearly understood to have been,
as it were, refounded ; it had received a further revelation and
had made a fresh start.

But, since, for practical purposes, no revelation is complete
unless there is an authentic record of it, there was logically
implicit from the first, in the idea of a “ further revelation,” the
conception of a New Testament to supplement the Old. The
Church was intellectually in a weak position until and unless it
could support its specific doctrines by the appeal to a collection
of sacred books which could be regarded as no less authoritative
and inspired than the ancient Jewish Bible. But, although a
canonised New Testament was necessary, the need for it was only
slowly realised. Nor, had the need been felt, could it have been
satisfied all at once. A community can only invest with canonical
authority literature which is already ancient, and which has
already, by its own intrinsic merit, attained to a high degree
of authority and repute. Official canonisation cannot create
scripture ; it can only recognise as inspired books which already
enjoy considerable prestige. The Epistle traditionally attributed
to Clement of Rome? is in this respect particularly illuminating.
The writer’s theology is largely taken over from the Epistle to
the Hebrews, while Romans and 1 Corinthians are quoted in a
way which implies that they are classics ; but, quite clearly, the
Old Testament alone is regarded as inspired Scripture.

The formation of an authoritative Canon of the New Testa-
ment would in any case have been a natural and obvious
development. It was enormously accelerated owing to the wide
prevalence of various schools of fantastic theosophy, classed
together under the general name of Gnosticism, which seem to
have had an extraordinary fascination for the half-educated mind

1 Acts vii. 38.

2 Usually dated a.p. 96; cf. add. note to Ch. XVII. below. As I hold that it
is indubitably quoted by Polycarp c. 115, I cannot accept the late date recently
proposed by E. T. Merrill, Hssays in Harly Church History (Macmillan, 1924),
p. 217 ff.

Te, THE SELECTED FOUR 5

in the second century. In points of detail the systems of the
various Gnostic leaders differed immensely. But common to
them all is the idea that matter is essentially evil, and that
therefore the material universe cannot be the creation of the
Supreme Good God, but of some inferior Power from whose
grip Christ, the emissary of the Good God, came to deliver man.
Gospels, Acts, and other writings claiming to be by Apostles were
circulated everywhere, in which Christ was represented as a
Divine Being not having a real body of flesh and blood, and as
having therefore suffered only in semblance on the cross; or
in which, alternatively, it was recorded that the Divine Christ
came down upon the man Jesus at the baptism, and was taken
up again to heaven at the Crucifixion. ‘‘ My Power, My Power,
why hast thou forsaken Me?” says Jesus in the Apocryphal
Gospel of Peter; and, adds the author, “immediately he (1.6.
the Divine Christ) was taken up.’ It was because this kind of
thing, grotesque as it appears to us, had a wide appeal in that
age, that the Church was compelled, sooner than might otherwise
have been the case, to draw a line between books which might,
and books which might not, be “read,” that is, accepted as
authorities for true and Apostolic doctrine.

The necessity for an official list of accepted books was more
especially brought home to the Church by the extraordinary
success of the semi-Gnostic Marcion. Marcion came to Rome
from Pontus on the Black Sea in A.p. 139, and lived there
for about four years in communion with the Church. Being
unable to convert the Roman Church to his peculiar views, he
proceeded to found a new church, of which a fundamental tenet
was the existence of two Gods. The Old Testament he rejected,
as being the revelation of the inferior of these two deities who
was the Creator of this evil world. The Good God, the deliverer
of mankind, was first revealed in Christ; but the original
Apostles had unfortunately misunderstood Christ, and supposed
the God whom He revealed to be the Creator, the inferior deity
who inspired the Old Testament. Christ’s new revelation was

6 THE FOUR GOSPELS CHAP.

therefore repeated to Paul. Hence his Epistles and the Gospel of
Luke—with all passages conflicting with Marcion’s views carefully
expurgated as Jewish-Christian interpolations—constituted the
sole authentic record of the new revelation made by Christ.
Thus Marcion for the first time emphatically presented, both to
the Jewish and to the Christian world, the conception of a fixed
and definite collection of Christian literature conceived of as
having canonical authority over against and in distinction from
the Old Testament. Marcion combined the dualistic explanation
of the problem of evil, which was the main attraction of all types
of Gnosticism, with the simplicity and fervour of the specifically
Pauline type of Christianity. He himself united intense religious
conviction with great organising capacity ; and within his own
lifetime he had founded a compactly organised church extending
throughout the Roman Empire. Its members, in the asceticism
of their lives and their readiness for martyrdom, equalled and
claimed to excel those of the Catholic Church. Earlier Gnostics
had maintained that their particular tenets had been originally
a mystic revelation, too precious to be committed to the vulgar,
and had been handed down to them by a secret tradition from
some one or other of the Apostles. Marcion made a new point
when he averred that the Twelve Apostles themselves had been
in error. To the Gnostics in general the answer of the Church
was to appeal to the unbroken tradition of the great sees founded
by Apostles and to the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles recognised
by those Churches ; against Marcion in particular the tradition
of the Church of Rome gained special importance from its claim
to represent the united tradition of both Peter and Paul—whom
Marcion’s theory set at variance with one another.

Marcion was the most formidable, precisely because he was
the most Christian, of all the Gnostics. The existence of his
canon forced the Church explicitly to canonise the books which
it accepted ; for his position could not effectively be opposed if
the Church ascribed to its own Gospels, and to its own version
of the Epistles, a degree of plenary inspiration less than that

I THE SELECTED FOUR 7

attributed by Marcion to the books in his collection. But when
the Church had taken this step it found its position unexpectedly
strong. After all, four Gospels does sound more imposing than
one; and a collection of books which included the Acts, and
works attributed to Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul could
colourably be regarded as representative of the concurrence of
all the Apostles. Once this collection was definitely regarded
as scripture, as a New Testament on the same level of inspiration
as the Old, the apologetic of the Church was provided with a far
broader foundation than the one Gospel and single Apostle to
which Marcion appealed. Incidentally the possession of a New
Testament made it possible to reply more effectively than hereto-
fore to the more damaging arguments of Jewish opponents ;
for the difference between Jew and Christian was no longer a
matter of the correct interpretation of the prophecies of the
ancient scriptures, but of the recognition of the new. Whether
the explicit recognition of the New Testament writings as
inspired scripture was the result of some official pronouncement
agreed upon by the authorities ef the Great Churches we do not
know. What we do know is that by about the year a.p. 180
the Four Gospels had attained this recognition in Antioch,
Ephesus, and Rome.

For Antioch our evidence is the statement of Jerome that
Theophilus, bishop of that church c. 180, wrote a commentary
on the Four Gospels, coupled with the fact that, in his one surviv-
ing treatise, Theophilus quotes the Fourth Gospel as “ inspired
scripture,” and by the name of John.t_ For Ephesus and Rome
combined our authority is Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons. He had
listened to Polycarp in Smyrna as a boy, had resided and lectured
in Rome in 177, and played the mediator between Ephesus and

1 Ad Autolycum, ii. 22. Jerome’s language in his Epistle to Algarsia
(Vallarsi, i. 858) may imply that Theophilus made a Harmony of the Gospels
before commenting on them. Some think he may actually have used Tatian’s
Diatessaron; but, even so, the fact that this was a harmony of ““ the Four,”
along with the ascription of scriptural authority to John, justifies the inference
that the Four were regarded by him as the inspired Four.

8 THE FOUR GOSPELS CHAP.

Rome in 191, when Victor of Rome had excommunicated the
churches of Asia—‘ Asia ” is the Roman name for one province
of Asia Minor—over a difference as to the manner and time of
keeping Easter. The main argument in Irenaeus’ comprehensive
Refutation of the Knowledge falsely so called (usually cited as
Adversus Haereses) is the appeal, against the Gnostic claim to
possess secret Apostolic traditions, to the uninterrupted public
tradition of the bishops of the Apostolic sees of Rome and
Asia. Accordingly we may be certain that what he says about
the Gospels represents the official view at Rome and Ephesus
at the time he wrote (c. 185). What that view was the following
extracts will sufficiently indicate.

“ Matthew published his written Gospel among the Hebrews
in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and
founding the church in Rome. After their decease Mark, the
disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing
those things which Peter had preached ; and Luke, the attendant
of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared.
Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his
bosom, published the Gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia.” 1

“It is impossible that the Gospels should be in number
either more or fewer than these. For since there are four regions
of the world wherein we are, and four principal winds, and the
Church is as seed sown in the whole earth, and the Gospel is the
Church’s pillar and ground, and the breath of life: it is natural
that it should have four pillars, from all quarters breathing
incorruption, and kindling men into life. Whereby it is evident,
that the Artificer of all things, the Word, who sitteth upon the
Cherubim, and keepeth all together, when He was made manifest
unto men, gave us His Gospel in four forms, kept together by one
Spirit. . . . For indeed the Cherubim had four faces, and their
faces are images of the dispensation of the Son of God. . . . For
the Living Creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel also is
quadriform.” 2

1 Tren. Adv. Haer. iii. 1. 1, 2 Tbid. iii. 11. 8.

I THE SELECTED FOUR 9

To the modern reader, language like this seems fantastic ;
but it is supremely interesting for what it implies. No one,
even in that age, could have used it except about books whose
sacrosanctity was already affirmed by a long tradition.

Locat GosPELs

The existence of four Gospels is so familiar that we are apt
to take it as a matter of course; to us, as to Irenaeus (though for
different reasons), it seems almost part of the nature of things.
But once we begin to reflect upon it, the acceptance by the Church
of four different official Lives of Christ is a fact which cries out
for an explanation. To begin with, the practical inconvenience
of having so many Lives is very great, especially as these alter-
nately agree and differ from one another in a way which
makes it extremely hard to get a consistent view of the story as a
whole. The inconvenience has been felt by every one who has
tried to give practical religious instruction. Again, already in
the second century heretics were making capital out of the
discrepancies between the Gospels.1_ So far as we can judge from
the solutions produced by later writers, it would appear that
criticism was principally directed to the divergence between the
genealogies of our Lord in Matthew and Luke and between the
chronology of the Fourth Gospel and that of the Synoptics.
But there are other hardly less striking divergences which, then
as since, must have given trouble to the apologist.

Tatian (who left Rome for Mesopotamia c. 4.D. 172) tried to
overcome these difficulties by combining the Gospels into a
single connected narrative. And until about 430 his Diatessaron,
or Harmony,? which carefully weaves the four Gospels into a

1 Tren. Adv. Haer. iii. 2.1. The Muratorian Canon (c. a.D. 200), / 16-25, seems
to glance at the same debate. Julius Africanus, c. a.D. 230, reconciles the
genealogies by a theory of Levirate marriages. Eusebius, perhaps following
Hippolytus (cf. B. W. Bagon, The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, pp.

226 ff.), discusses the reconciliation of the Synoptic and Johannine chronology.
H.E. iii. 24.

2 The original of this is lost, but we have Arabic, Latin, and Old Dutch

10 THE FOUR GOSPELS OHAP.

continuous story, while preserving as far as possible their original
wording, seems to have been the only form in which the Gospels
were publicly read in the Churches (and even commented on by
theologians) among the Syriac-speaking Christians. In that part
of the world the “‘ Separate Gospels ” were very little used, while
the Diatessaron was commonly spoken of simply as “ the Gospel.”
Fortunately for the historian, though perhaps less so for the
Sunday School teacher, the experiment of substituting a single
official Life for the four separate Gospels did not commend itself
to the Greek and Latin Churches, otherwise our Gospels might
have survived only as conjectured “ sources ” of the Diatessaron.

Another thing that requires explanation is the inclusion of
Mark among the selected Four. Modern scholars, it is true, are
unanimous in accepting the view that Mark is the oldest of the
Gospels, and was one of the main sources from which Matthew
and Luke drew their information. And Mark preserves a number
of small details, omitted or blurred in the other Gospels, which,
to the historical instinct of the twentieth century, are of the
utmost interest. But the very fact that these details were not
reproduced in the later Gospels shows that they were uninterest-
ing, or even positively distasteful, to the Church of that age,
Again, Mark has no account of the Infancy, nor (in the text as
given in the oldest MSS. and versions) of the Resurrection
Appearances, and it contains comparatively little of the teaching
of our Lord. Apart from the minor details already mentioned,
it includes only two miracles and one parable not in Matthew or
Luke, and most of its contents are to be found in both the other
two. It is the Gospel least valued, least quoted, and most
rarely commented on by the Fathers. Augustine can even
venture to speak of Mark as “a sort of lackey and abridger of
Matthew.” + And in the Western Church, till Jerome’s Vulgate,

versions, besides an Armenian version of a commentary on it by Ephraem the
Syrian (c. 360). The most recent discussion of the comparative value of these
authorities is by F. C. Burkitt, J.7.8., Jan. 1924.

* “Marcus eum (sc. Matthaeum) subsecutus tanquam pedisequus et
breviator ejus videtur,” Aug. De cons. evan. ii.

1 THE SELECTED FOUR 11

in spite of the fact that tradition averred that the Gospels were
written in the sequence Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, they were
officially arranged in the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark,}
so as to put the least important Gospel last. They so stand in
many Old Latin MSS. and in the Greek MSS. D and W, which
give a definitely Western text. Why, then, was it thought
necessary to ascribe to it canonical authority at all? Why did
not Mark, like the other ancient sources used by Matthew and
Luke, cease to be copied—being superseded by its incorporation
in these fuller and more popular works ?

The foregoing considerations prove that the inclusion of four
Gospels, and of these particular four, in the Canon, was not
determined by considerations of practical convenience; and it
involved the Church in obvious apologetic difficulties. Thus it
can only be accounted for on the hypothesis that, at the time
when the Canon was definitely settled, each of the four had
acquired such a degree of prestige that no one-of them could be
excluded, or could even have its text substantially altered in
order to bring it into harmony with the rest.

Certain of the divergences between the Gospels, in particular
those between Matthew and Luke, are of such a character that
it is difficult to believe that these books originated in the same
church, or even in the same neighbourhood. The contrast
between the Jewish atmosphere of Matthew and the even more
markedly Gentile proclivities of Luke is enhanced by a still more
notable contrast between the divergent cycles of tradition on
which they draw. The formal contradiction between the two gene-
alogies is really less significant than the extraordinarily meagre
contacts between their two accounts of the Infancy and of the
Resurrection Appearances, for these were matters of much more.

1 This order is explained and stated to be official in the so-called
Monarchian Prologues: “‘ Qui (sc. Johannes) etsi post omnes evangelium scrip-
sisse dicitur, tamen dispositione canonis ordinati post Matthaeum ponitur.”’
These Prologues to the Gospels, found in some Latin MSS., are printed in
Wordsworth and White’s Vulgate; also in convenient pamphlet form in
Kleine Texte. P. Corssan, in Texte und Untersuchungen, xv. 1, dates them as
third century ; others attribute them to Priscillian - 380.

12 THE FOUR GOSPELS ORAP.

general interest. Churches in which the traditions current were
80 completely independent in regard to points of such absorbing
interest as these must, one would suppose, have been geographically
remote from one another. Again, the survival of Mark would
be adequately explained if it had had time to become an
established classic in one or more important churches some time
before its popularity was threatened by competition with the
richer Gospels produced in other centres,

Thus we are led on to the view that the Gospels were written
in and for different churches, and that each of the Gospels must
have attained local recognition as a religious classic, if not yet
as inspired scripture, before the four were combined into a
collection recognised by the whole Church. The tradition, for
what it is worth, decidedly supports this view. Mark is assigned
to Rome, John to Ephesus, Luke to Achaea, and Matthew to
Palestine. The tradition connecting the Gospels of Mark and
John with Rome and Ephesus is so early and fits in so well with
other pieces of evidence that it may safely be accepted. In
particular, the view that Mark was the old Gospel of the all-
important Church of Rome would completely account for its
inclusion in the Canon. The tradition connecting Luke, the most
Hellenic of the Gospels, with old Greece cannot be traced earlier
than the (probably third century) Monarchian Prologues to the
Latin Gospels. It may be only a conjecture—if so, it is a
happy one. The evidence connecting Matthew with Palestine
must be largely discounted, insomuch as it is bound up with the
statement that it was written in Hebrew, which does not seem
to hold good of our present Gospel. I shall shortly return to this
question ; but, at any rate, the tradition constitutes prima facie
evidence that the Gospel originated in. the East—probably at
Antioch.1

All four Gospels were cettainly known in Rome by a.p. 155,
if not before. Justin Martyr, who was writing in Rome,

1 So Foakes-Jackson and Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, i. p. 329 f.
(Macmillan, 1920.)

I THE SELECTED FOUR 13

150 years—he himself says—after the birth of Christ, speaks
of “ Memoirs which are called Gospels,” 1 and again of ““ Memoirs
composed by the Apostles and their followers.” These he says
were read at the weekly service of the Church. And in his
writings are to be found something like a hundred quotations
or reminiscences of Matthew and Luke, and some of Mark and
John. There is so very little in Mark which does not also occur
in Matthew or Luke that we should expect the allusions to matter
peculiar to Mark to be few. But the paucity of his quotations
from John is a little strange when set side by side with the
central position in his apologetic system of the Johannine
doctrine of the Logos. From this, some scholars have inferred
that, while Justin himself—who had been converted to Christi-
anity in Ephesus—accepted the Ephesian Gospel, the Roman
public for which he wrote did not put it on quite the same level
as the other three. Moreover, it is possible, though not I think
probable, that he made occasional use of other Lives of Christ
besides the four we have. If so, he used them only as sub-
ordinate authorities. But although Justin’s evidence shows
that by a.p. 155 all four Gospels have reached Rome, once
the idea that the Gospels were originally local Gospels is
presented to us, we realise that each of the Gospels must have
an earlier history, which requires to be separately investigated
and must go back a considerable period before the date when
the collection of Four was made. But the separate histories
of the Gospels cannot be properly appreciated if considered
apart from the histories of the several churches in which they
were produced. In this connection I would stress a considera-
tion to which scholars in general have, I think, given too little
attention.

The original capital of Christianity was the mother Church of
Jerusalem. But Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in

1 Justin, Apol. i. 66; Dial. 103. Convenient tables illustrating Justin’s
use of the Gospels are given by W. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century,
pp. 91 ff., 113 ff.

14 THE FOUR GOSPELS CHAP.

A.D. 70, after a long and peculiarly horrible siege. By that time
most, if not all, of the original Apostles had died. Naturally,
therefore, Christians in the smaller cities of the Roman Empire
tended more and more to look for guidance and direction to
those other ancient capitals upon which in secular affairs they
and their ancestors had been most directly dependent. Rome,
the political centre of the civilised world, was in a more special
sense the capital of the West. In the East the old capitals of
conquered states were still the headquarters of provincial
administration, the most important being Alexandria and
Antioch on the Orontes, the capitals respectively of the old
Egyptian Empire of the Ptolemies and of the old Seleucid
Empire of Syria. Of the lesser kingdoms which had been in-
corporated into the Roman Empire, one of the most prosperous
was that province of Asia Minor known by the Romans and
in the New Testament as “Asia,” of which Pergamum was
the official capital but Ephesus the most notable city. Two
other provinces which for special reasons are important in the
history of the early Church were Achaea and Palestine, of which
the administrative capitals were Corinth and Caesarea. The
Church in all these cities could claim special association with,
if not actual foundation by, Apostles. Hence during the second
century, when Gnosticism seriously menaced the essential char-
acter of Christianity, and when it seemed that it could only
effectively be resisted by the appeal to Apostolic tradition, their
Apostolic connection gave these churches—and especially the
three most important of them—Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome—a
prestige which made their influence for the time being determinant
in the development of Christianity. It is notable that it was
not until after a.p. 190, by which time the Four Gospel Canon
seems to have been universally accepted, that Alexandria began
to exercise any considerable influence on the Church at large.
During the century or more after the death of the original
Apostles and the fall of Jerusalem there was no unifying authority,
no world-wide organisation, however informal, to check the

I THE SELECTED FOUR 15

independent development of the various local churches each on
its own lines. Inevitably this independence resulted in local
diversity—in regard to doctrinal emphasis, Church organisation,
the religious literature most valued, and also, as we shall see,
in regard to the manuscript tradition of such books as they had
in common. Thus the history of Catholic Christianity during
the first five centuries is very largely the history of a progressive
standardisation of a diversity the roots of which were planted in
the sub-Apostolic age. It was during the earlier part of this
period of maximum independence that the Gospels were written ;
and the delimitation of the Four Gospel Canon was the first step
in the process of standardising.

Tue TwiticuHt PERIOD

The story of the Acts of the Apostles leaves Paul in Rome a
couple of years or so before the persecution under Nero (a.D. 64),
in or shortly after which probably Paul, and possibly Peter,
fell. Owing to the extreme paucity of early Christian literature
(apart from the New Testament) the ninety years which separate
this event from the writings of Justin is the most obscure in
the history of the Church. It was during this period that the
Gospels were written, and during the earlier part of it each must
have had a separate history. In the last three chapters of this
book I attempt to trace something of this history. By a scrutiny
of the evidence sufficiently minute, more especially by the piecing
together of results gained along different lines of research, it is, I
believe, possible to do this, and to determine the dates, author-
ship, and place of origin of the several Gospels with a greater
degsee of assurance than is commonly supposed. But for the
moment the point I desire to emphasise is that among the most
important of the facts on which these larger historical conclu-
sions must be based are the results attained by a critical study of
the mutual relations of the Gospels to one another and the light
which this throws on the sources which their authors used.

16 THE FOUR GOSPELS OHAP.

In order to illustrate this point, and at the same time to make
an opportunity of setting down certain facts to which I may have
occasion to refer back later on, I will cite four pieces of evidence
bearing on the origin and dates of the Gospels—indicating the
way in which they are amplified or reinforced by the result of
the critical studies upon which the reader of this volume is about
to embark.

(1) Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, on his way to martyrdom
in the Colosseum at Rome, 6. A.D. 115, wrote seven short letters.
In these we find a dozen or more reminiscences of material
found in the Synoptic Gospels. But, if these allusions are
critically examined by a student of the Synoptic Problem, he
will note that while all of them may, some of them must, be
regarded as reminiscences of Matthew ; for in certain cases the
language of Ignatius implies a knowledge of passages which such
a student recognises as attributable to the editor of that Gospel
and not his sources.! Matthew, then, was a standard work at
Antioch before 115. This would fit in with the tradition of
Palestinian origin; but, for reasons I shall develop later, I
think it more probable that, though it may incorporate a
Palestinian source, the Gospel itself is really the local Gospel of
the important Church of Antioch. At any rate, its use by
Ignatius fixes a point in the history of the Gospels.

(2) I have already mentioned how, after a four years’ member-
ship of the Roman Church, Marcion founded the most vigorous
of all the early sects, and how, rejecting the Old Testament, he
elevated to the rank of inspired Scripture the Epistles of Paul
(the only Apostle who had really understood Christ) and the
Gospel of Luke—all heavily bowdlerised to accord with his own
views. Now even so forcible a person as Marcion could hardly
have induced his followers to attribute plenary inspiration to an
existing document unless it was one which enjoyed considerable

» #.g. Ignatius clearly alludes to Mt. iii. 14-15 (Smyrn. i. 1) and to Mt. viii.
17 (Polye. i. 2-3). In Ch. XVII. below I comment on the more striking allu-
sions in Ignatius to passages in the Gospel.

I THE SELECTED FOUR 17

prestige ; hence we may infer that, at any rate in Rome, the
Gospel of Luke was, by a.p. 140, already a Church classic of
some years’ standing. If, however, we wish to trace the history
of the Gospel further back, we find that, though possible reminis-
cences of it (and its sequel, the Acts) may be found in the scanty
literature of the period, they fall short of certainty. At once
the importance is seen of the question whether or no Luke was
known to the author of the Fourth Gospel, since (if the view
maintained in Ch. XV. be correct) this cannot be later than
A.D. 100 and may quite possibly be as early as 90. Thus the
problem of the sources of the Fourth Gospel bears also on the
history of the Third.

(3) Eusebius, the father of Church History, c. 325, had a
fortunate habit of quoting his authorities verbatim; and, as
we can check his accuracy by those which still survive, we can
trust it in regard to those which do not. Among the most
interesting of these are two passages from Papias, bishop of
Hierapolis, one of the “ seven churches of Asia.’ As to the date
at which Papias wrote his Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord,
from which Eusebius quotes, there has been much dispute;
but the limits on either side would seem to be 135 and 165. It
runs as follows :

“And the Elder said this also: Mark, having become the
interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he
remembered, without however recording in order! what was either
said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor
did he follow Him, but afterwards as I said (attended) Peter who
adapted his instructions to the need (of his hearers) but had no
design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles. So
then Mark made no mistake while he thus wrote down some things
as he remembered them ; for he made it his one care not to omit
anything that he heard or to set down any false statement
therein” (Eus. H.£. iii. 39).

1 J dissent from F. H. Colson (J.7'.S., xiv. 62 f.) that rhetorical, rather
than chronological, τάξις is meant.

18 THE FOUR GOSPELS CHAP.

From the context in Eusebius it would appear that the Elder
spoken of was the Elder John. His identity must be inferred
from another quotation by Eusebius, this time from the Preface
of Papias’ work.

“ And again, on any occasion when a person came in my way
who had been a follower of the Elders, I would enquire about
the discourses of the Elders—what was said by Andrew, or by
Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or
Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and what Aristion
and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say.”

Aristion and the Elder John, it appears from this, were
in the unique position of being “disciples of the Lord” who
ranked after the Apostles themselves as depositories of authentic
tradition. Presumably they must at least have seen the Lord in
the flesh. Irenaeus ! tells us how in his youth he heard Polycarp
speak of ‘‘ John and the others who had seen the Lord,” and it
is not impossible that Polycarp was alluding to John the Elder,
though Irenaeus seems to have understood him to mean the
Apostle John. Some critics wish to emend the Greek in the
quotation from Papias so as to make Aristion and the Elder
disciples, not of the Lord, but of the Apostles. In my own view
the emendation is arbitrary and improbable. But, even so,
Aristion and the Elder John are left as immediate followers of the
Apostles—like Mark or Luke. That is to say, on any view, the
statement of the Elder John as to the origin of Mark is the
evidence of a contemporary.

Contemporary evidence as to the origin of the oldest of our
Gospels is of the utmost historical importance. But the question
has been raised, Was the Gospel of Mark of which the Elder spoke
the Gospel we possess or some earlier edition? The answer to
this question is bound up with the answer to the other question,
whether the extant Gospel of Mark, or some earlier edition
of it, was known to, and used by, the authors of Matthew and
Luke. Further, it will appear (in Chap. XI.) that this last point

1 Tn his letter to Florinus, quoted p. 443 below.

I THE SELECTED FOUR 19

cannot satisfactorily be decided without a correct estimate of
the comparative value of the several lines in the manuscript
tradition of the text of the Gospels. That is to say, the question
as to the original Mark can only’ be settled on the basis of the
combined results of both Synoptic and Textual criticism.

(4) To the quotation from Papias about Mark, Eusebius adds
one about Matthew: ‘‘So then Matthew composed the oracles
(τὰ λόγια) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted
them as he could.”” Volumes have been written on this enigmatic
fragment. In this place all I can do is to state in a seemingly
dogmatic way an hypothesis, which I believe to be original, and
which I shall attempt to justify at greater length in the sequel.

(a) Irenaeus is known to have read Papias; we infer that his
statement about the Hebrew original of Matthew, and all the
similar statements by later Fathers, are probably derived from
Papias. Since, then, the credibility of any statement depends
on its origin, not on the number of persons who repeat it, the
statements of the later authors can be ignored, if only we can
find what exactly is the meaning and authority of this passage
in Papias.

(Ὁ) Whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, there can
be no reasonable doubt that it. was written in Ephesus. And at
the date at which Papias wrote—and the later we make this
date, the stronger the argument—it must have been officially
recognised in Papias’ own province of Asia. Further, as Light-
foot pointed out, in the list of Apostles mentioned in the previously
quoted fragment of Papias, the order and selection of names is
that of their occurrence in the Fourth Gospel, not of the
Synoptic lists. We are bound, then, to consider the curiously
disparaging tone of Papias’ remarks about Matthew and Mark in
the light of this presumption that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel.

Of Mark, Papias, or rather the Elder his informant, says in
effect “the facts are correct—that follows from Mark’s connection
with Peter—but, as Mark had only his memory to rely upon, he
has got them in the wrong order.” In regard to Matthew he

20 THE FOUR GOSPELS CHAP.

says that “the original of the discourses (τὰ λόγια) was in
Hebrew and there is no authorised translation.” Now this
depreciation of Gospels used in the Church is quite unaccountable
unless it seemed necessary in order to defend the superior accuracy
of some other Gospel which was in conflict with them in regard
to certain points.

Now obviously the Fourth Gospel is in violent conflict with
Mark in regard to the order of events. But it has not, I think,
hitherto been realised, in this particular connection, that the
Fourth Gospel is equally in conflict with Matthew in regard to
the “ prophetic utterances”—that is the strict meaning of
τὰ λόγια--οἱ our Lord. Matthew is the Gospel which lays
most emphasis ori the idea of an early visible Second Coming ;
John is the Gospel which all but substitutes for this visible
return of Christ the coming of the Paraclete. Papias himself
was a Millennarian ; but it is probable—Eusebius is ambiguous
here—that the passage about Matthew, like that about Mark,
is quoted from the Elder John. In that case the two fragments
of Papias represent what Asian tradition recollected of John the
Elder’s reply to critics who impugned the accuracy of the Fourth
Gospel on the ground of its divergence from Matthew and Mark.

Heretofore scholars have taken it for granted that τὰ λόγια
was the title of a book—differing only in their view as to whether
the book referred to was our Gospel of Matthew, a lost collection
of sayings of the Lord, or a collection of proof-texts. I submit
that if—in the lost context of the fragment—Papias was talking,
not about books, but their subject-matter, ra λόγια would be
the natural phrase to use in speaking of the sayings of Christ
which form so conspicuous an element in the existing Gospel
of Matthew. The Elder—thinking, partly of the Judaistic,
but. mainly of the Apocalyptic, sayings in Matthew—says that
the discourses in this Greek Gospel cannot always be relied on
as accurately representing the original Hebrew (cf. p. 416).

If this explanation is correct, the Elder may have known
of the existence of a Hebrew (prob.=Aramaic) collection of

I THE SELECTED FOUR 21

sayings of Christ by Matthew (though he need not actually have
seen it), and he does not wish to deny that this had been used
by the author of the Greek Gospel. But he declines to regard
as a wholly apostolic, and therefore in all points authoritative,
work the Greek Gospel which, at the time when he was speaking,
was in all probability a new arrival in Ephesus and not yet
generally accepted in that church. But, supposing the fragment
represents a protest on behalf of the local Ephesian Gospel
against the superior claims made by certain persons in favour
of a Gospel recently introduced from outside, we are not entitled
to infer from the expression “each one translated them as he
could” that the Elder knew of any other Greek versions of
Matthew's Hebrew work. More probably his language is a
slightly contemptuous exaggeration intended to assert that the
particular Greek version (1.6. our Gospel of Matthew), to the
authority of which the critics of the Fourth Gospel were appealing,
was aN anonymous version having no claim to direct apostolic
authority. What he is anxious to assert is that the Greek
Gospel of Matthew, like that of Mark, is only deutero-apostolic,
and that, therefore, its authority cannot be quoted as final where
it conflicts with the Fourth Gospel. This does not necessarily
imply that he attributed the Fourth Gospel to an Apostle.
On the contrary, supposing that the Elder knew that this Gospel
was by an unknown disciple of John, or supposing that he were
himself (as I shall argue) the author, it would only be the more
necessary to point out that Gospels like Matthew and Mark,
which were at times in confliet with it, were no more directly
apostolic than itself.

In the interpretation of the meaning of a fragment, torn from
its original context, there must always be an element of doubt.
But the above interpretation has two great merits. First, it
explains the extraordinary fact that the earliest allusion in
Christian literature to the Gospels is an endeavour to minimise
their accuracy and Apostolic authority. Secondly, the view
that the Elder John meant to affirm that the Greek Matthew

22 THE FOUR GOSPELS OHAP.

was not the work of an Apostle, though embodying a work
originally written in Hebrew by the Apostle Matthew, fits in
admirably with the result of a critical comparison of the Synoptic
Gospels, which suggests that the author of our First Gospel used
Mark and at least one other source mainly consisting of dis-
course. There is not, however, I may incidentally remark, any
reason to suppose that the Hebrew work of Matthew was ever
known by the title “ Logia.”

Source anp ΤΈΧΤΟΑΙ, Criticism

These examples will suffice to show how the critical study
of the internal relations of the Gospels to one another may
illuminate the external evidence as to their authorship, date,
or locality of origin. But, if we are to pass on from the history
of the Gospels themselves to a consideration of their value as
historical authorities for the life of Christ, the analysis of sources
is still more important. For our estimate of the historical value
of the Gospels depends in the last resort upon the opinion we
frame as to the sources of information upon which the several
authors relied, and of the degree of accuracy with which they
reproduced them.

The historian, moreover, must go on to ask the question, How
far does the text of the Gospels that has come down to us
represent what the authors wrote? The earliest MSS. we possess,
apart from a few papyrus fragments, are separated by a matter
of two and a half centuries from the authors’ original. Since
absolute accuracy is an ideal not attainable by mortal man,
every time a MS. is copied some errors will get into the text.
But the errors which will arise and be propagated along one line
of transmission will not be the same as those along another.
Thus by a comparison of MSS. representing different textual
traditions the errors of one can be corrected from another.
But if this is to be done, it is vital to ascertain the number and
character of these different traditions and how far they are

I THE SELECTED FOUR 23

independent of one another. I have already indicated how in
certain ways the study of textual criticism, in the light of recent
MS. discoveries, throws unexpected light on some of the obscurer
aspects of the Synoptic Problem ; incidentally it provides further
evidence of the necessity of studying the history of the Gospels in
each of the Great Churches separately.

Many of those who recognise that both textual criticism and
the analysis of sources are an essential preliminary to a truly
historical investigation are nevertheless inclined to recoil from
the study of these problems, fearing lest they may become choked
by the dust of multifarious detail. To such I would venture
to suggest that whether a particular investigation is instinct
with interest or fraught with tedium depends very much on the
spirit in which it is approached. The problems discussed in the
present volume have, if one cares to look at it in that light,
much the same kind of intellectual appeal as the quest for the
solution of a difficult acrostic or of a problem in chess. An even
better analogy would be the science of Geology; for that is
recognised as truly a science, though a science which, from the
nature of the case, is compelled to dispense with the method of
experiment and relies solely on observation. Geology attempts
to reconstruct the history of the past by a highly scientific
application of the method of observation. Facts, over as wide
a range as possible, are collected, sifted, and compared, in order
that hypotheses may be framed which will satisfactorily account
for the observed phenomena. The critical investigations pursued
in this volume are of a precisely similar character. And the
student who enters upon these problems in the same spirit of
scientific inquiry as he would if they were problems of Geology
will find the method not without interest and the results well
worth the trouble.

3
=
e
°
»
ο
4
>
3
»

Uni Eoyuoyessay J,
ydiyyge VINO G35vW

g
Z
: SHI γεη) διῖγ fo ογθῦς “ἢ

MOOG SiH. NI GINOILNIW S3IVId 43!HD ONIMOHS

: d ¥W

ΡΑΒΤῚ

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION

(1) THE THEORY OF “LOCAL TEXTS”

Original Autographs

ALEXANDRIAN EASTERN WESTERN

ITALY~-GAUL AFRICA

ANTIOCH

CAESAREA

Dab W"*ke
CL33 Boh
Revised Text of Lucian ¢ AD.310
Byzantine (orStandard’)Text. (A)E ete. ete.
Textus Receptus
(II) WESTCOTT δ᾽ HORT’'S THEORY
Original Autographs
ALEXANDRIAN NEUTRAL WESTERN
(ΟἹ, ὅδ Sah.Boh) ΒΝ D. Old Lat. Syr.C.

( fam.® so far as known)

Syrian Revision ¢.A.D. 310
“Syrian” @Byzantine) Text. (A) Ε ete.

Textus Receptus

LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS

SYNOPSIS

A Brrp’s Eye VIEw

The Received Text represents approximately the Byzantine text
found in the majority of MSS. But the earliest MSS. and Versions
afford evidence of the existence at an early date of a number of local
texts, differing considerably from one another, which in the course
of time were gradually submerged by the Byzantine standard text.
Recent discovery and investigation necessitates considerable modi-
fications of the theories put forward by Westcott and Hort.

(1) The two oldest MSS., Bs (on which W.H. mainly based their
edition of the Greek Testament), represent the local text of Alexandria.
(2) What is called the ‘‘ Western ”’ text is really not a single text, but
a group of distinct local texts within which an Kastern type (with
two sub-varieties current in Antioch and Caesarea respectively) must
be clearly distinguished from the Western type (used with some slight
differences in Africa and Italy).

The materials for the textual criticism of the Gospels contrasted
with those available for classical authors. Note on von Soden’s
edition.

Loca TExts

Brief survey of the conditions of copying and correcting MSS.
which led to the development of local texts. The maximum of
divergence between local texts probably reached ὁ. a.p. 200. This
is reflected in the oldest Latin, Syriac and Egyptian Versions.

The great majority of various readings are, in regard to points of
grammar, order of words, etc., so small as to make no essential differ-
ence to the sense ; but for the identification of the various local texts,
the concurrence in a group of MSS. of a large number ofthese minute °
variants is of chief significance. Large omissions or interpolations,
though more striking, are for this purpose less important, since in the
period when the churches were comparing different texts and correct-
ing one by another, the more conspicuous variants would be the first

28 THE FOUR GOSPELS

to attract attention, and would thus be adopted from one text into
another.
STANDARDISATION

As Constantinople came more and more to dominate the Greek-
speaking Church, MSS. representing the old local texts were gradu-
ally by a series of corrections brought into conformity with the
Byzantine standard text. An analogy from the history of ancient
liturgies. Similarly MSS. of the Old Latin version were corrected
into conformity with the revised version produced by Jerome at the
command of Pope Damasus in 381. The result of this standardising
process was the production of “ mixed ” texts, 1.6. of MSS. in which
one set of readings survive from ancestors representing an old local
text, while others agree with the standard text. In mixed MSS. the
only readings that need be noticed are those which differ from the
standard text.

THe FATHERS AND THE STANDARD TEXT

Since later scribes who copied the works of the Fathers were
themselves familiar with the standard text of the Gospels, there was
an inevitable tendency for them to correct quotations from the
Gospels occurring in an early Father so as to make them conform to
the standard text. Two striking illustrations of this process. It
follows that when in the printed editions of an early Father (few
Fathers have been critically edited from the best MSS.) a quotation
from the Gospels is found to agree with the Byzantine text against
the local text which that Father elsewhere seems to use, there is a
presumption against that particular reading being what that Father
originally wrote ; it is more likely to be the result of a scribal correc-
tion in the MS. of the Father.

An ILLusion aBout MSS.

The distinction between MSS. written in uncial (i.e. capital)
letters, or in a cursive (1.6. small running) hand, in no way corresponds
to a difference in their value to the textual critic. Many cursives are
quite as important as any uncials after the first five, SBLDO; the
practice of citing uncials by a capital letter, cursives by a number,
makes the difference between them appear far greater than it really
is. After a.p. 600 MSS. with a substantial mixture of the old local
texts were rarely copied except in out-of-the-way places or by
some accident, and this might occur at quite a late date; also a
late cursive may be a direct copy of an early uncial. Of special
interest are 88, 579 (allies of BN); also 1, 28, 565, 700, and the
“Ferrar Group” (13 &c.), which, together with 0, form a family
(fam, Θ) preserving the text of Caesarea.

CHAPTER II
LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS

A Birp’s Eve VIEw

To those who read the Gospels in order to obtain a general
idea of the life and teaching of Christ, or who value them mainly
for devotional purposes, it makes very little difference whether
they use the Authorised or the Revised Version. All they want
the textual critic to tell them is within what limits of error the
text of either version represents what the authors wrote. Any one,
however, who wishes to study the subtler shades of meaning in
particular passages, or who is interested in the evidence for every
detail of the life and teaching of our Lord, will be more exact-
ing, and will demand the most accurate text that a scientific
study of the MSS. can produce; while to the student of the
Synoptic Problem, endeavouring by a microscopic comparison of
the Gospels to determine the sources which their authors used, the
minutest variant may be of the utmost significance. Indeed, as
will appear in a later chapter, it is precisely because most writers
on the Synoptic Problem have been content to use without
question Synopses of the Gospels in Greek, based either on the
text of Tischendorf or on that of Westcott and Hort, that a
completely satisfactory explanation of the relation of Matthew
and Luke to Mark has not sooner been attained.

The facts which constitute the main difficulty in our quest
for the original text may be summed up in a paragraph.

There are over two thousand manuscripts of the Gospels in
29

80 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. I

Greek, beginning with the eighth century MS., commonly cited as
E, which present a text of aremarkably uniform character. This
text was named by Griesbach the “ Byzantine text ”»—a name
preferable to that of “ Syrian ” given it by Hort, since, whatever
its origin, it was indubitably the standard text of the Byzantine
Empire all through the Middle Ages. In sharp contrast to the
general uniformity of the Byzantine text is the extent of varia-
tion exhibited by the half-dozen Greek MSS. that survive from
the fourth and fifth centuries, and by the Greek texts under-
lying the Old Latin, the Old Syriac and the older Egyptian,
Versions, of which we possess MSS. of an equally early date.
Of the six oldest Greek MSS. only one, A, has a text that in all four
Gospels approximates to the Byzantine standard. The other five,
x BCD W,}! and the three ancient Versions just mentioned have
texts which differ to a remarkable extent both from one another
and from the Byzantine text. What is even more significant—
the quotations from the Gospels made by all Christian writers up
to about A.D. 360 almost invariably agree with one or other of
these older MSS. or Versions rather than with the Byzantine text.

Thus there is forced upon our notice evidence that in the
earlier period there was great diversity between the texts of the
New Testament current in the Church—a diversity which was
succeeded later on by a high degree of uniformity. We notice
at once an analogy between the history of the text and that of
the settlement of the canon and the formulation of doctrine.
Here, as elsewhere, the final result, it would seem, is a standardisa-
tion of an earlier variety.

The problems which the textual critic has to solve are three.
(1) He must account for the great divergence between the types
of text current in the second, third and fourth centuries.
(2) He must explain the origin of the Byzantine standard text
and the process by which it replaced the other types. (3) Finally,
in the light of the conclusions reached on these two points, he

1 T accept the date (fifth century) assigned to D, the Codex Bezae, by
F. C. Burkitt and Ἐς. A. Loew. Cf. J.7.8., July 1902 and April 1913.

OH. II LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS 31

must endeavour to determine which of these types of text, or
what kind of combination of them, will represent most nearly
the text of the Gospels as they left the hands of their several
authors. The third problem is of course much the most im-
portant; but he cannot hope to solve it rightly unless he has
first found a reasonably satisfactory solution to the other two.

The relation of our printed Greek Testaments and of the
English versions to the types of text found in the MSS. may be
summarily stated in a very few words. Erasmus was the first
to produce an edition of the Greek Testament in print; a
subsequent revision of his edition by the Paris printer Stephanus,
1550, became the standard printed text or Textus Receptus.
Readings of this text are commonly cited by the abbreviation
T.R. or the Greek letter ¢ (= st). Since both Erasmus and
Stephanus used (all but exclusively) late Byzantine MSS., the
English Authorised Version, which was translated from the Textus
Receptus, represents a late stage of the Byzantine text. On the
other hand, in the great critical editions of Westcott and Hort
and Tischendorf the Byzantine tradition is entirely abandoned
and the text is based almost entirely on the two oldest MSS. of
all, Β (Vaticanus) and δὶ (Sinaiticus)—of which the first prob-
ably, the second possibly, dates from the reign of Constantine
(d. A.D. 337). Where these two MSS. differ, Westcott and Hort
usually follow B; Tischendorf more often prefers x (Aleph), his
own discovery. The “ Revisers’ text,” from which the Revised
Version was translated, and which is published by the Oxford
University Press, represents a compromise, on the whole a very
reasonable one, between the views of Hort, who championed a
text based on B, and those of the more conservative members
of the Committee who defended the Byzantine text.

At that time neither party was concerned to put in a plea
for any readings (except a few omissions) supported only by D
(Codex Bezae), by the then known MSS. of the Old Latin and
Old Syriac version, or by certain late Greek MSS. exhibiting texts
of an unusual type. These authorities were all lumped together

32 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

under the general name of the “ Western text,” and their
readings were treated as interesting eccentricities. But investi-
gations by more recent scholars and fresh discoveries—of which
the Sinaitic Syriac (ὅσ. 8.), the Koridethi MS. ©, the Freer MS.
W, and 700 are the most notable—have changed this. (1) It is
now generally realised that Β δὶ represent, not, as Hort held,
some almost impeccable ‘“‘ Neutral’? text connected- with no
particular locality, but the text of Alexandria in its purest form.
(2) The question has been raised whether, under the misleading
name ‘“ Western,” Griesbach and Hort did not group together
what in reality are several distinct local texts.

In Chapters III. and IV. I shall submit an outline of the
evidence which compels us to recognise in what they called the
“ Western”’ text two distinct types, an Eastern and a strictly
(in a geographical sense) Western text. Hach of these types
can be further divided into at least two distinct local texts.
Indeed it can, I think, be shown that recently discovered
MSS., if properly used, enable us to get a fairly clear idea of
the different types of text current about a.p. 230, not only in
Alexandria, but in Caesarea and Antioch in the East, and in
Italy and Carthage in the West.

If this is established, obviously the basis of evidence on which
the text of the Gospels rest is greatly widened. Of these five
early local texts that of Alexandria (B x) is, as we should expect
from the traditidn of textual scholarship native to the place,
undoubtedly the best; but no MS. and no line of textual
tradition is infallible, and it will not infrequently appear that
the true reading of a particular passage, lost at Alexandria, has
been preserved in one or other of the rival texts.

It is, however, quite impossible for the student to interpret
rightly the evidence by which the identification of local texts
is achieved unless he has previously considered (a) the condi-
tions which originally gave rise to the existence of these local
texts, and (b) the exact nature of that process of progressive
correction into conformity with the Byzantine standard text

cH. π' LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS 33

to which many of our most important authorities have been
subjected. The present chapter, therefore, will be mainly
devoted to a discussion of these two points.

In the field of classical literature the main difficulty of the
textual critic, except in the case of a few extremely popular
authors like Homer or Virgil, is the paucity and late date of MSS.
No portion of Tacitus, for example, survived the Dark Ages in
more than one; and the number of famous works of which,
apart from Renaissance reproductions, there are less than half a
dozen MSS. is very large. Again, apart from fragments, there
are no MSS. of the Greek classics earlier than the ninth century,
and very few older than the twelfth. The student of the text
of the Gospels is confronted with a difficulty of an opposite
character. There are more than 2300 Greek MSS., about forty
of which are more than a thousand years old; there are over
1500 Lectionaries which contain the greater part of the text of
the Gospels arranged as lessons for the year; there are fifteen
Versions in ancient languages, which are evidence of the Greek
text used by their translators. In addition, there are innumerable
quotations by early Fathers, which are, in effect, fragments of
other early MSS. now lost. The mass of material to be con-
sidered is crushing. The consequences of this are twofold. On
the one hand the degree of security that, in its broad outlines,
the text has been handed down to us in a reliable form is prima
facie very high. On the other, the problem of sorting the material
in order to determine those minuter points which interest the
critical student is proportionately complex—how complex is
only known to those who have given considerable attention to
the study. Nevertheless so much has been accomplished in this
way by the labours of generations of scholars, that it is now
possible—if we disregard minor issues and accept as provision-
ally established certain conclusions to which a minority of experts
might demur—to present “a bird’s eye view” of the history of
the text, which will be both intelligible to the plain man and at
the same time in principle scientific. Such a view will be in one

84 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

sense a further development of, in another an attempt to super-
sede, the theory put forward by Westcott and Hort in the
Introduction to their famous edition of the Greek Testament.
Thus it will frequently be necessary to criticise certain of the
views of Hort—by whom that Introduction was written. I
wish, therefore, once and for all to affirm that this implies no
undervaluing of the truly epoch-making character of the work of
that great scholar. There is no greater name in the history of
Textual Criticism. But for Hort, no such thing as what I am
here attempting would be possible; and such modification of
his views as seems to be necessary is mainly due to discoveries
made since the time he wrote.

1 Of the views of H. von Soden it is impossible to speak in such terms as
I should wish, retaining, as I do, pleasant recollections of a personal interview
with him a few years before his tragic death. Soden had at his disposal a large
sum of money given to enable him to employ numerous assistants, in order to
scour the libraries of the East for MSS. hitherto either unknown or not carefully
examined ; but unfortunately not much of the first importance was discovered.
The Byzantine text he styles K (=«xow7), the Alexandrian H (= Hesychian) ;
all other authorities, whether Eastern or Western, are assigned to an I
(=Jerusalem) text. In Chapter IV. I shall attempt to discriminate between
the almost equally balanced elements of truth and falsehood in his conception
of an I text.

In his colossal Introduction he has succeeded in illuminating the grouping of
late MSS. and the history of the Byzantine text. But his theories of the influence
of Tatian and of a 119". I—H—K text are, if I may borrow a phrase once
used by Dr. Sanday, “ποῦ only wrong but wrong-headed.” I am informed
by one of the leading scholars in Germany that Soden’s theories, in so far
as they are original, are universally rejected in that country, and that his
grouping of the MSS. is considered arbitrary. Of his cumbrously conceived
attempt to introduce an entirely new naming and numbering of the MSS. I
need say nothing, as the vast majority of scholars in Europe and America
have agreed that they will not accept it, but will henceforth use Gregory’s
revision of the old notation. Advanced students, however, must have some
acquaintance with his views, for without that the Apparatus Criticus of his
edition cannot be deciphered, much less understood. They should, however,
be warned that it is very inaccurate. (On this point there is some damaging
evidence in the Introduction to the ‘* New Collation of Codex 22” by Prof. H. A.
Sanders, Journal of Biblical Studies, xxxiii. p. 91 ff.) Such students I would refer
to an invaluable pamphlet by Prof. K. Lake, Prof. H. von Soden’s Treatment
of the Text of the Gospels (Otto Schultze, Edin.; a reprint of articles in
Review of Theology and Philosophy, Oct.-Nov. 1908). This paper gives an
extremely clear account of Soden’s grouping of the MSS. and a sympathetic
exposition of his very complicated views, followed by a very courteous but, in
effect, annihilating criticism of them.

cH. 0 LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS 35

Loca TExts

The invention of printing made it possible that every copy of
a book should be exactly the same. This was a new thing in
the history of literature. So long as books were copied by hand,
no two copies could be exactly the same; every copy included
certain scribal errors. In the scriptoria of the great libraries it
was customary in antiquity for a corrector, διορθωτής, to go over
a MS., sometimes with the original from which it was copied,
more often, apparently, with another copy. The most obvious
mistakes, including accidental omissions, would thus to a large
extent be rectified. But this is unlikely to have been done in
the earliest MSS. of the Gospels, which would be cheap copies
and often made by amateur scribes. In that case an error which
made nonsense or spoilt the grammar of a sentence would be
subsequently corrected by the.owner of the book—probably,
from lack of another copy, by conjecture. If, however, the
error was one which left a reading which still made sense, it
would be likely to escape notice altogether. In either case the
new reading would be reproduced by all subsequent scribes who
used this copy as an exemplar. Now as soon as there were
numerous copies of a book in circulation in the same area,
one copy would constantly be corrected by another, and thus
within that area a general standard of text would be preserved.
But what we have to consider is that it is unlikely that the
errors in the first copy of the Gospel of John, for example,
which reached Rome would be the same as those in the first
copy which came to Alexandria; and as each of these would
become the parent of most other copies used in those respective
cities, there would, from the very beginning, be some difference
between the local texts of Rome and Alexandria.

Once the Gospels were regarded as inspired, they were copied
with scrupulous accuracy and by the most skilful scribes avail-
able. But during the first and most of the second century they

86 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

would be, for the most part, copied by amateurs—for Christians
were a poor community and a secret society under the ban of the
police. It was during this period that all the really important
various readings arose. Both insertion and omission would be
more possible then than at a later date. For, on the one hand,
it was a time when incidents or sayings not included in the
original Gospels would still survive in oral tradition, and when
their inclusion in a text not yet regarded as sacred would be
least resented. On the other hand, accidental omissions—the
commonest of all errors in copying, whether in ancient or modern
times—-would most easily become permanent; for at a period
when the churches were relatively isolated, a passage once
omitted from the earliest copy which reached a particular church
would not for a long while, if ever, be replaced. This is the ex-
planation of what is the most conspicuous difference between one
text and another, that caused by the presence in some MSS. of
sentences or paragraphs not found in others. Of these variants the
so-called Pericope Adulterae, 1.6. the story of the woman taken
in adultery (Jn. vii. 53 ff.), and the last twelve verses of Mark
are much the most considerable; but there are quite a number of
other interesting passages, from half a verse to a couple of verses
in extent, which are found in some MSS., but omitted in others.
The textual critic is called upon to decide in each particular case
whether the reading is the result of accidental omission in the
texts which lack, or of interpolation in the texts which contain,
these passages. The principles on which such decisions can be
made will be discussed later.

But variants of this kind, though the most conspicuous, are
not the most important to the critic who is seeking to identify
early local texts, for the simple reason that they are so conspicu-
ous that they would be the first passages to strike the eye of
later scribes or editors who wished to correct or supplement their
own text by that of another church. A convincing proof that a
group of MSS. represents the text of a particular locality is only
forthcoming if they are found to concur in a large number of

ΟΕ. 1 LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS 37

minor variants which are either not found at all or found but
rarely in other MSS.

For a discussion, with illustrative-examples, of the causes
and exact character of these minor variants I refer the reader to
Appendix I., ‘The Origin of Variants.” In this place I need only
say that the number of such variants is immense. Between the
Textus Receptus and Westcott and Hort, that is, practically
between the Byzantine text and that of B, there are, in the
Gospels alone, about 4000 differences. And the number of
differences between the text of B and that of D would, I imagine,
be quite twice as many. JBut no less remarkable is the in-
finitesimal character of the vast majority of these differences.
For the most part they consist in variations in the relative order
of words in a sentence, in the use of different prepositions, con-
junctions and particles, in differences in the preposition with
which verbs are compounded, or in slight modifications of a
grammatical nature.2 Indeed the great majority of them can-
not be represented in an English translation.

The main influences which operate to produce differences of
text are illustrated by the passages discussed in Appendix I.
These are all influences which would operate in every locality.
Where a change would effect an obvious grammatical improve-
ment or tend to assimilate the text of one Gospel to another,
the same alteration might easily be made independently in two
different neighbourhoods. But only rarely would any of the
other causes of corruption result in a coincident alteration of
exactly the same kind along two different lines of textual trans-
mission. On the contrary, corruption as a rule causes texts to
become in the course of time more and more different. In this
way local texts would inevitably develop, not only in the greater,

1 Any one who would like to study these may find a collation of the two
texts in W. Sanday, Appendices ad Novum Testamentum, Oxford, 1889.

3 Such phenomena are by no means confined to the toxt of the New
Testament. They are a conspicuous feature of the texts of the Fathers; they
are found, though to a much less extent, in the texts of some classical writers.
See the remarks about MSS. of Augustine quoted by F. G. Kenyon, The
Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Macmillan, 1912), p. 355 note.

38 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

but also in the smaller centres of Christianity. But, along with
a growing veneration for the text as that of inspired Scripture,
there would come a tendency, whenever a new copy of the
Gospels for official use in the public services was wanted, to lay
more and more stress on the importance of having an accurate
text. This would naturally result in the smaller churches
obtaining new copies from the greater metropolitan sees, since
these would be thought likely to possess a pure text. From
these any copies in private hands in the smaller churches would
be corrected. Thus the local texts of smaller churches would
tend to become assimilated to those of the greater centres in
their immediate neighbourhood. The next stage would be for
the great churches to compare their texts and endeavour to
reach a standard text which would be universally accepted.

To this process the history of the text of Homer, obscure
though it is in certain ways, presents some analogies. The
quotations of ancient authors and the earliest papyrus fragments
attest readings not found in the κοινή, or standard text, which
has come down to us; and grammarians often cite readings of
other texts which are described as κατὰ πόλεις, that is, appar-
ently, local texts onee current in certain famous cities.

In the light of these antecedent probabilities we should
expect to find the maximum of diversity between local texts of
the Gospels in the early part of the third century. After that
date, with the increasing possibilities of communication between
churches and the rapid spread of Christianity among the more
educated classes, there would gradually arise a demand for a
standard text. All the evidence points in this direction. The
oldest Greek MSS., the oldest versions, the quotations of the
oldest Fathers, all attest diversity. Scholars like Rendel Harris,
Chase and Hoskier have made ingenious attempts to discount
the evidence of the ancient Versions and to discredit, as due to
retranslation, the text of the Greek MSS. like D or B which
are most closely allied to them. Such attempts are inspired by
the assumption, only half conscious but wholly fallacious, that

on. 1 LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS 39

at the beginning of the third century there was anything
approaching a uniform Greek text in use throughout the Church.
On the contrary, antecedent probability and the evidence of
Patristic quotations alike point to the period + a.p. 200, when
the older Versions were produced, as that of maximum local
diversity. And it is precisely because they preserve this diversity
that these versions are of primary importance to the critic as
evidence for the older local texts.

The ultimate aim of textual criticism is to get back behind
the diverse local texts to a single text, viz. to that which the
authors originally wrote. But the high road to that conclusion
is first to recover the local texts of the great churches, and then
to work back to a common original that will explain them all.

STANDARDISATION

The Byzantine text, we shall see later, most probably origin-
ated in a revision based on older local texts made by Lucian of
Antioch about a.p. 300. The fact of such revision, and still more
the precise relation of it to the older texts, is a matter on which
opinions may differ. What is not open to question is that this
type of text, whatever its origin and whatever its value, did
gradually oust all other types and become the standard text
in the Greek-speaking Church. It is therefore important to
recognise the difference which the invention of printing has made
in the mechanism, so to speak, of the process by which a standard
text can be introduced where it was not previously in use. If
the proper authorities in the Church of England should decide
that henceforth the Lessons be read from the Revised Version
instead of from the Authorised, the change would for the most
part be made in three months. A certain number of clergy
might resist it; in that case, some churches would henceforth
be using the one version, and some the other. But by no
possibility could a mixed version be anywhere used. In antiquity
it was just the reverse. From the end of the third century the

40 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

relatively cheap papyrus roll was replaced by the magnificent
“codex” (1.e. MS. in book form) written on parchment. It
was not practicable, except in the largest cities, to discard the
Bibles already in use and obtain new ones. No doubt this
would be done in the great cathedrals and in the larger monas-
teries. Elsewhere existing MSS. would be corrected more or
less carefully from some copy of the standard text—much as
an incumbent is still legally bound to correct the copies of the
Prayer Book belonging to the parish, when the names in the
prayers for the King and Royal Family require to be changed
on the accession of a new monarch. This is no mere con-
jecture. In some of our oldest MSS. we can see the process
actually at work. δὰ, for example, has been corrected by
several hands at different dates, and (apart from corrections
by the διορθωτής and an all but contemporary scribe) the
great majority of corrections are into conformity with the
standard text; the same thing holds good of the corrections
in W.1

Doubtless the wealthier and more important churches or
monasteries would get from Antioch or Constantinople com-
pletely new copies of the approved text. Bishops and priests in
smaller towns would bring their old MSS. with them next time
they had occasion to visit the provincial capitals and take the
opportunity of making the necessary corrections. Let us suppose
that the text of the Gospels in a particular city or monastery
was of the B type, and that the Bishop or Archimandrite, on
a visit to Constantinople, wished to correct it to the standard
text. He would bring his own copy with him and tell off one
of his attendant priests or monks to collate it with the model.
Two-thirds of the 4000 or more differences which the micro-
scopic eye of a Tischendorf, trained by a lifetime of such com-
parison, would detect, this man would never notice. Of the

* This can be conveniently verified in Scrivener’s A Full Collation of the
Codex Sinaiticus (Cambridge, 1864), passim, and in H. A. Sanders, The N.T7.
MSS. in the Freer Collection (Macmillan Co., New York, 1912), pp. 31, 36.

OH, πὶ LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS 41

rest, at least half would seem to him too unimportant to record,
since they make no real difference to the sense. If the corrector
were more than usually careful, and had plenty of leisure for
the work, he might make 500 corrections ; if careless or pressed
for time, perhaps only 50. The copy thus corrected would
be taken back; and from it other local copies would be made,
embodying these corrections in the text. What then would be the
character of the resultant text ? It would be a mized text, some
of its readings being Alexandrian, others Byzantine. Some
actual examples of mixed texts of this type are discussed below
(p. 61 ff.) and in Ch. IV.

This sort of thing would be going on everywhere; but the
results would differ in every case. For instance, a priest from
another town might also bring a B text to be corrected ; but the
list of differences which he happened to notice, or to think worth
correcting, would be quite a different one. This time the result-
ant text, although equally a mixture of B and the standard text,
would be a different mixture. Again, from other centres the MSS.
brought for correction might be of one of the types of text
commonly called ‘ Western.” Descendants of these MSS., as
corrected, would show a mixture of “‘ Western”’ and Byzantine
readings. And now suppose that, a century or so later, some
conscientious bishop or monk arose who again compared his
partially corrected local text by the Byzantine standard. The
same process would be repeated; but it would result in a still
further diminution of the Alexandrian or ‘“‘ Western ” elements
in the text current in that locality. Since this process of succes-
sive standardisation was going on for centuries, the remains of
the pre-Byzantine texts would gradually get revised away.

In the later period of classical antiquity a text more or less
pure of the great authors was preserved by the tradition of
scrupulous accuracy and careful correction maintained in the
great libraries—especially that of Alexandria. And, as every
one who wanted a good text resorted to these centres, a standard
text gradually supplanted that of cheap popular copies. In the

42 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

Middle Ages the library tradition passed to some of the greater
monasteries, and doubtless this had a similar effect in fixing and
propagating the standard text. Thus after the eighth century
it was only here and there, in small monasteries in remote districts,
that MSS. would be copied which still contained a substantial
proportion of readings characteristic of the older texts.

According to Hort there are (not counting fragments) only
three MSS., B, » and D, which have altogether escaped some
measure of correction to the Byzantine standard; and it is
significant that two of them are a century older than any others.
It is also noticeable that D was written by an ill-educated scribe,
and that the same thing applies to other important MSS. with
a large non-Byzantine element, e.g. L, A, 28 and, still more con-
spicuously, Θ. This suggests that they were written in out-of-
the-way places, where the Byzantine text had not yet penetrated
or had only recently done so. Zoology presents us with an
analogy ; the last survivors of species, once widely prevalent
but now on the way to extinction, are found in remote and
isolated spots.

The slow and haphazard working of this process of standard-
isation explains the comparative failure of any standard revision
of the Old Testament to oust the older texts. In the first place,
anxiety to correct and recorrect, in the endeavour to attain what
was regarded as the purest text, would be much less acute for the
Old Testament than the Gospels. Secondly, the Old Testament
being so much longer, and therefore so much more expensive to
copy, than the New, many even of the cathedrals and larger
monasteries would prefer to correct old, rather than to purchase
new, copies. Thirdly, only selections of the Old Testament were

1 The reputation of Origen’s Hexapla, a work we shall speak of later (p. 111 f.),
which was preserved at Caesarea till the city was sacked by the Saracens,
made that, as the scholia prove, an alternative to the revision of Lucian of
Antioch as a standard of correction. The majority of MSS. of the LXX give
a mixed text; though it is believed that in B we have an early Alexandrian,
in a few other MSS. a text derived from the Hexapla, in rather more the text

of Lucian, and in some few a text which is thought to represent the revision by
Hesychius alluded to by Jerome.

oH. I LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS 43

read in the Church services, and for this purpose Lectionaries were
used. The complete Old Testament was a work of reference for
theologians, copies of it not being subject to the wear and tear
of daily use lasted a long while. Indeed this is the probable
explanation of the fact that, although MSS. containing the whole
New Testament are comparatively rare and MSS. containing the
whole of the Old Testament rarer still, the four oldest MSS. we
possess, Bx AC, originally contained the whole Bible. There
must always have been an overwhelming proportion of MSS.
containing the four Gospels only ; but, while most early copies
of the Gospels were worn out by constant use, the four great
Bibles survived because they were kept in libraries as works of
reference.

To this standardisation of the text of the New Testament
there is an illuminating parallel in the history of the Greek
liturgies during the same period. In the sixth centuries the
Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria had each its own
liturgy, known respectively by the names of St. James and St.
Mark; and there were various other local rites in use. But
gradually the later Byzantine rite superseded all others within
the remains of the old empire. Then the churches of Syria and
Egypt, which survived under Mohammedan rule, gradually
assimilated the Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark to the
Byzantine standard. Thus all the surviving Greek texts of these
liturgies have been, to a large extent, standardised. But the
original form can be recovered by means of the vernacular
liturgies of the Syriac and Coptic churches.’ It is an interesting
reflexion that, had no Greek MSS. earlier than the tenth century
survived, we should in the same way be dependent on Latin,
Syriac, and Coptic translations for our knowledge of the older
forms of the text of the Greek Testament.

Precisely the same process of standardisation can be traced
in the Latin church. In 381 Jerome was commissioned by Pope
Damasus to produce a revised translation of the New Testament

1 Cf. F. E. Brightman, The English Rite, i. p. xx ff. (Rivington, 1915).

44 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

in order to remedy the confusion arising from the great diversity
in the text and renderings of the Old Latin version at that time
current. Two years later his translation of the Gospels was
formally presented to the Pope as a first instalment. Revised
versions are rarely popular at first, and for some little time copies
of the old version continued to be reproduced. Indeed, Pope
Gregory, writing in 595, lays down that both versions are
recognised by the Catholic Church. Gradually, however, the
text of Jerome’s translation, which we know as “the Vulgate,”
prevailed. But its influence spread quite as much through the
correction of old copies by the new standard as by the substitu-
tion of new text for old. The result is that we have a number
of MSS. the text of which is a mixture, in varying proportions, of
Old Latin and of Vulgate elements. Indeed, just as the Greek
Textus Receptus includes certain readings (e.g. the Pericope in
John) which, though found in some pre-Byzantine MSS., are
absent from the earliest MSS. of the Byzantine text, so in the
“received ” text of the Vulgate certain Old Latin readings are
found which Jerome had discarded. Fortunately, however, our
MSS. of the Vulgate are so numerous and ancient that the text
of the version as it left Jerome’s hands can be recovered with
approximate certainty. This has been done in the magnificent
edition of Wordsworth and White. With a copy of this edition
in hjs hands, the student can readily distinguish in any mixed
MS. the readings characteristic of the Old Latin.

We may now formulate a canon of criticism of the first im-
portance. Of MSS., whether Greek or Latin, later than the fifth
century, only those readings need be noted which differ from the
standard text. That does not mean that readings of the
Byzantine Greek or the Vulgate Latin are necessarily wrong ;
most of them are to be found in one or other of the earlier
texts. It means that, since the authorities for any reading

1 ἐς Sedes apostolica, cui auctore Deo praesideo, utraque utitur (ν.1. utrique
nititur),’’ Moralia in Job, Pref. Ep. ad fin. It is possible, however, that
Gregory’s remark only applies to the Old Testament.

cH, Ππ LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS 45

adopted in the standard text number in Greek two thousand, in
Latin five thousand, a few hundred more or less makes no
difference. But, as will shortly appear, our knowledge of the
earlier types of text current in the East, not counting Egypt,
depends mainly on the fragments of older MSS. which survive
in mixed texts, and these fragments can only be identified by
noting those readings which differ from the standard text.

THE FATHERS AND THE STANDARD TEXT

The standard text has also influenced the textual tradition of
quotations from the New Testament in the works of the Greek and
Latin Fathers. As a general rule it may be laid down that in late
and inferior MSS. of the Fathers the Biblical quotations accord
much more closely with the Byzantine text or the Latin Vulgate,
as the case may be, than in good or early MSS. That is to
say, that same process of assimilating earlier texts to the later
standard, which we find in our MSS. of the Gospels, can also be
traced in the quotations from the Gospels found in the works of
the Fathers. Seeing that quotations by early Fathers are the
principal means by which we identify and localise the type of
texts found in pre-Byzantine or pre-Vulgate MSS., this considera-
tion is of great importance. It may be illustrated by a concrete
example. Hort had detected a connection between the text of
the Old Latin Codex Bobiensis, known as k, and the text of
Cyprian. Dr. Sanday pressed the investigation a stage further.
Working from the printed texts of Cyprian he found that, in
general, the quotations of Cyprian agreed with k ; but, especially
in the work entitled Testimonia, they frequently agreed with the
Vulgate against k. He noticed, however, that in a number of
cases when a quotation in the Testimonia agreed with the Vulgate,
the same quotation occurred in other works of Cyprian in a form
which agreed with k. Pursuing the subject further he studied
the MSS. of the works in question, and made the illuminating
discovery that the quotations as given in one group of MSS.

46 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. I

accorded with the text of k. The MS. which had been
followed in Hartel’s edition of Cyprian had suffered some
correction from the standard text.1 A precisely similar thing
happened in regard to the recently recovered Expositions
of XIII. Epistles of St. Paul by Pelagius. The first MS.
identified gave an almost pure Vulgate text, which led one
famous scholar to conjecture that the Vulgate revision of the
Epistles was the work of Pelagius, not of Jerome. Sub-
sequently the Balliol MS. of the commentary was discovered,
in which the text commented on by Pelagius is clearly not
the Vulgate, but the Old Latin.?

For a very large number of the Fathers the only printed texts
available are the Benedictine editions or the reprint by Migne.
These are frequently based on late MSS. Hence confidence can
be placed in their texts of the quotations from the Gospels in the
earlier Fathers only where these give a reading which differs from
the standard text. I give an illustration of this from Origen’s
Commentary on Matthew—a work I shall have occasion to
refer to again. Origen quotes Mt. xxvi. 3-5 and then proceeds
to comment on the passage. In his quotation according to the
Benedictine edition the words “and the scribes ”’ occur, as in
the Byzantine text; but his comment makes it clear that
these words were absent from the MS. he was using, as they
are from Bw 1 &c., 18 &., and many other extant MSS.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers survive in so few MSS. that caution
must be exercised even in regard to the texts of those Fathers
of whom modern critical editions are available. For example,
all our authorities for Origen’s Commentary on John® go
back to a single X°™* MS. This, on the whole, is a reason-

Old Latin Biblical Texts: No. 11. (Oxford, 1386), p. xliii ff., p. Lxii ff.,
and p. 123 ff.

2 A. Souter, Texts and Studies, ix. 1, p. 157 (Cambridge, 1922),

8. Of this there are two excellent critical editions, that of A. E. Brooke
(Cambridge, 1896), and that of E. Preuschen (Berlin Corpus, 1903). There is
no critical text of the equally important Commentary on Matthew, the Berlin
Corpus not yet having reached this work.

oH. Π LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS 47

ably good MS., and in this work of his we very rarely find
quotations of the Gospels by Origen agreeing with the Byzantine
against one or other of the pre-Byzantine texts. This shows that
the quotations have suffered very little from scribal assimilation
to the standard text; but it does not constitute even an ante-
cedent presumption that they have not suffered at all. Here and
there Origen quotes a verse with a reading characteristic of
the Byzantine text. But it is quite unsafe for the critic to
build upon these exceptional cases. A tenth-century scribe,
presumably a monk, must have known the Gospels—at any
rate, Matthew, Luke, and John, from which the: Church lessons
were mostly taken—almost by heart, and that according to the
Byzantine text. However faithfully he tried to copy the text
before him, there is always an interval between reading and
writing in which, in moments of inadvertence, the human
memory has time enough to substitute a familiar for an un-
familiar phrase. Hort was well alive to the danger of taking
for granted the texts of the Fathers, but it seems necessary to
reiterate the caution since, for all practical purposes, it has
been ignored by von Soden, with disastrous consequences to- his
evaluation of patristic evidence for the pre-Byzantine texts.

ΑΝ Itiusion aBout MSS.

The student who desires detailed information about the
dates, history, and paieography of individual MSS., I must
refer to the standard text-books.1 But it will be well to
begin the discussion of the whole subject by clearing out of the
way a misapprehension which has affected the practice, if not
the conscious theory, of even distinguished scholars. Before the

1 #.g. Sir F. G. Kenyon’s Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N.T'.
(Macmillan, 1912); C. R. Gregory, Textkrittk des N.T. (Leipzig, 1909); Hb. Nestles
Hinfiihrung—rewritten and brought up to date by E. von Dobschiitz (Géttingen,
1923)—is excellent on a smaller scale. A bare list of select MSS., with dates and
with von Soden’s enumeration, is to be found in the Introduction to A. Souter’s

edition of the Revisers’ Greek Testament, which also has a selected Apparatus
Criticus (Oxford, 1910).

48 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

year A.D. 800 Greek books were written in capital letters or
“uncials,” but shortly after that date a “ minuscule” or “ cur-
sive’ hand—previously only used for informal writing—began
to come into use for books also. The modern printed Greek
characters, it may be remarked, bear much the same relation to
this cursive script as printed italics do to ordinary handwriting.
But it took a couple of centuries before the cursive finally sup-
planted the uncial style, and an actual majority of the uncials
of the Gospels which survive in at all a complete state belong to
this transitional period. Now Greek uncial MSS. are commonly
cited by the capital letters of the English or Greek alphabet,
except the Codex Sinaiticus, to which is assigned the Hebrew x
(aleph). Cursives, on the other hand, are cited by a number.
Now, it is much easier for most people to individualise a MS.
which is cited by a letter. But, through the overlapping of the
English and Greek alphabets, there are only about forty letters
available ; and some of these have been traditionally assigned
to MSS. of the Gospels which are mere fragments. Thus over
2000 MSS. remain to be cited by anumber. But, while a letter
has something of the quality of a proper name, a number is a
“mere number.”’ Hence an illusion of the superior importance
of uncial testimony is created, which subtly infects the judgement
and the practice even of commentators and others who should
know better. The illusion is fostered by the practice, which
on principle I discard, of referring to uncials as MSS., but
to cursives as mss. The leading MSS. are By D; next in
importance come L and the newly discovered ©. These five
are all uncials. Again the three γ᾽ θη. uncials, ACW, have
from their antiquity claim to special consideration. But there
are several cursives which are quite as important as these
three, and which are of decidedly greater value than any uncial
after the first eight.

A cursive is not necessarily later than an uncial. There is a
curious ninth-century MS. of which the first part (cited as 566),
containing Matthew and Mark, is written in a cursive hand,

oH. 1 LOCAL AND STANDARD TEXTS 49

while the second half (cited as A) is uncial. To the same century
belong 33, “the queen of cursives,” one of the main supporters
of the Bx text; and 565, the gold and purple “ Empress
Theodora’s Codex,” the most important ally of ©, so far as Mark
is concerned. These two are actually earlier in date than some,
and they contain a more important text than any of those
fifteen uncials which, being designated by the capital letters
E F, etc., look so much more impressive in an Apparatus Criticus.
Of course the mass of cursives are considerably later than the
mass of uncials ; but a notable fact about the authorities for the
text of the New Testament is that, once we get past the year 600,
the value of a MS. for determining the text is very little affected
by the date at which it was written. The explanation of this
is that the Byzantine text, except perhaps in Egypt, became
more and more the universally accepted standard, and, as we
have already pointed out, only in out-of-the-way places, or by
some oversight, could a MS. which did not (as regards the bulk
of its readings) conform to this type be copied without drastic
corrections being first made.1 And when such a MBS. did get
copied, it was an accident which might occur at practically any
date. Thus, to take an extreme instance, the readings of the
XV": Leicester cursive 69—one of the best representatives of
the so-called “ Ferrar Group” (13 &c.)—are of the greatest
interest to critics. It seems to have been copied from an ancient
uncial surviving in a monastery in S. Italy which had long lost

1 An apparent exception is the specially fine illuminated XII°™* MS. 157.
The text of this, regarded by Hort as the cursive next in importance to 33,
cannot be due to an oversight, since it was written for the reigning Emperor.
It is to be explained, I believe, by the colophons at the end of all four Gospels
stating that it was “copied and corrected from ancient exemplars from
Jerusalem preserved on the Holy Mountain.’”’ As the same colophons are
found also in the much older MS. A-566, they must have been in the ancestor
from which 157 was copied. I suggest that a mediaeval Emperor seeing or
hearing of a MS. purporting to represent the old text of Jerusalem might
well wish to possess a copy, although aware that it differed from the standard
text. The “Jerusalem colophon”’ occurs also in 565, another “ imperial” MS.,
but only after Mark; here, too, it may explain the preservation in that Gospel
of an older text. New collation of 157 by Hoskier, J.7.9., xiv. p. 78 ff,

50 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

contact with the main stream of Greek Christianity. Again, it
has been shown! that the XIII°"* Paris cursive 579 was (in Mk.,
Lk., Jn.) almost certainly copied directly from a VI%™ uncial
having a text akin to Bx (cf. p. 62). Hence for all practical
purposes these late cursives must be treated as if they were
among our older uncials. The same thing applies to the
XI-XII°"*: cursives numbered 1, 28 and 700. These, as we
shall see later, are—along with @ 565 and the Ferrar Group—
the most important members of the family of MSS. (fam. ©)
in which is preserved the ancient text of Caesarea. The
precedence of MSS. depends, not on their age, but on their
pedigree.

1 A. Schmidtke, Die Evangelien eines alten Unzialcodex (Leipzig, 1903).

ΠῚ
THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES

SYNOPSIS

THE VERSIONS AS A CLUE

The antecedent probability that the oldest torms of the Coptic,
Latin and Syriac versions were derived respectively from the Greek
texts current in Alexandria, Rome and Antioch is confirmed in the
first two cases by quotations of early Fathers, in the third by less
cogent evidence.

THe Text oF ALEXANDRIA

Summary of evidence that B & represent, not what Hort called
a “ Neutral” text, but the purest type of Alexandrian text.

The text found in Clement, which is largely Western, probably
not really Alexandrian. The B δὰ text used in Origen’s Com-
mentary on John begun at Alexandria before α.Ὁ. 230.

Doubt whether the “ partially degenerate form of the B text”
(found especially in CL and the Bohairic), to which Hort gave the
name ‘“‘ Alexandrian,” ever existed as a definite recension.

The distinction between degeneration of a text caused (a) by
scribal blunders or stylistic emendation, which are necessarily wrong
readings, (6) through infiltration of occasional readings from other
ancient local texts, which, in certain cases, may preserve a true
reading.

CoRRECTED ALEXANDRIAN TEXTS

The survival of Β καὶ side by side with certain MSS. which
represent the Alexandrian text partially corrected to the Byzantine
standard, enables us to study the actual process of standardisation.
Tt appears (a) that the revision was often very irregular, (6) that the
text of Mark has frequently escaped with much less revision than
that of the other Gospels. Hence emerges the canon of criticism—

52 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. I

‘research into the pedigree of a MS. should begin with the study
of its text of Mark.”

THE WESTERN TEXT

The Old Latin version survives in some few MSS. in a very pure
form, in others with a greater or larger amount of correction to the
standard of Jerome’s Vulgate. There are two main families: (1) the
African, best preserved in & (shown by Hort and Sanday to preserve
the text used by Cyprian of Carthage, ὁ. 250) ; (2) the European, of
which bis the type MS. It is possible that a may represent a third
local type. The probability is that the African Latin (k supported
by e) was translated from a very old form of the Roman text. The
Codex Bezae D for all four Gospels, and the recently discovered W
for Mark only, give, roughly speaking, the Greek equivalent of the
type of text found in the Old Latin, and in the quotations of Irenaeus
of Lyons, c. 185.

Ture Text or EpHesus

Our evidence far too scanty to justify a definite conclusion ; but,
such as it is, it suggests that the old text of Ephesus may have been
allied to that of D.

THE Text or ANTIOCH

The new evidence discovered since Hort wrote makes it possible
to make a clear distinction between an Eastern and a Western text.
The Old Syriac and the mixed cursives can no longer be treated as
authorities for the “ Western ”’ text.

Summary of reasons for supposing that the Old Syriac represents
approximately the ancient text of Antioch. Relation of this to the
later Syriac and to the Armenian versions.

CHAPTER III
THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES
THE VERSIONS AS A CLUE

Our jumping-off point, so to speak, for a scientific study of
the text of the New Testament is the consideration that the
churches of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were the frontier
stations of Greek-speaking Christianity. After the fall of Jeru-
salem, these naturally became the “home base ” of missions to
the peoples whose native speech was Latin, Coptic or Syriac.
This fact facilitates our quest for the early local texts of the
Gospels ; for there is obviously a presumption that the Latin,
Egyptian and Syriac versions were derived from the Greek
texts current respectively in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.
In the case of Rome and Alexandria this is more than a
presumption. Marcion c. 140, Justin .c. 150, and Hippolytus
c. 190-236 wrote in Rome, and Tatian about a.p. 172 compiled
the Harmony of the Four Gospels, known as the Diatessaron,
either at, or immediately after leaving, Rome. All these wrote
theological works in Greek and so presumably read the Gospels
in Greek, especially as this was the language of the liturgy of the
Roman Church. But their quotations show that the text they
used was similar to that which appears in the surviving MSS. of
the Old Latin. A similar inference may be drawn from the
general coincidence between quotations of the Gospels by Origen,
Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria with the type of text found

in the Coptic (1.6. Egyptian) versions.
53

δ4 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

Unfortunately we cannot test the early text of Antioch in
the same way. Theophilus, 4.pD. 180, is said to have composed a
commentary on the Four Gospels, but in his one surviving work
his quotations of them are too rare to be of use to the textual
critic ; and the next writer of this church is Chrysostom, 360.
Nevertheless reasons, less than demonstrative but still cogent,
can be produced in support of the view, in itself antecedently
probable, that the Old Syriac approximately represents an early
text of Antioch. The identification of the old text of Caesarea,
which is the main contribution which I personally have to make
to the subject, will be discussed in the following chapter. But
in the course of this chapter I venture in regard to the text
of Ephesus to put forward a suggestion which avowedly is no
more than mere conjecture.

THe Text oF ALEXANDRIA

Our first step is to scrutinise the Greek MSS., especially those
of early date, to see if the text of any of them exhibits any close
connection with that of one or other of the three types which
the early versions attest. At once our search is rewarded by
the discovery that the text of the two oldest MSS. Bs and their
VIII": ally, L, is closely connected with that of the Coptic version
—which exists complete in two dialects, the Sahidic and Bobairic
—and to that implied in quotations of the New Testament
by Origen and Cyril of Alexandria. Moreover, a text identical
with that found in x B L is found in the fifth century fragments
of Luke and John, known as T. T is bilingual, Graeco-Sahidic,
so that this alone would, as it were, anchor this type of text in
Egypt. Besides this, papyrus fragments of the third and fourth
centuries have been found at Oxyrhynchus agreeing closely with
Bx, while the text found in later papyri is predominantly,

1 Cf. esp. the fragments of John in Oxyrhynchus Papyri 208 and 1781,
probable date a.p, 250-300. Though printed in different volumes (ii. and xv.)

these are part of the same MS. This is the oldest known MS. of any part of
the Gospels and is in book (not roll) form.

OH. 1 THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES 55

though not exclusively, of this type. Additional evidence
may be found in the fact that readings found in the Bw text
are sometimes spoken of as “‘ Alexandrian” in the scholia in
certain MSS.1 Lastly, the readings specially characteristic of
this text are not found in the quotations of any early Fathers
outside Egypt.

Bousset has compiled a series of half a dozen tables of
various readings to illustrate the relation between the text of
x BL and the various Graeco-Sahidic fragments T. As these
tables also serve to illustrate the relations of x L to one another
and to B, I reproduce the first of them,” in which he analyses the
104 variants occurring in the fragment containing Lk. xxii. 20-
xxiii. 20. The left-hand column shows the number of variants
supported by each of the four MSS.; the others show the
number of times that T is supported by B, δὶ and L respectively.

Be X. L.
BrLT 64 64 64 64
BrTt 7 Tf 7
ΒΊΤ' 11 ΤΙ 11
Bie 15 10
ΝΤ 4 4
xLT 1 1 1
iT 2

Total 104 BT 97 x T 76 LT 76

This table is fairly typical of the series, and it shows not only
the close relation of this group of MSS., but the central position
occupied by B. When we find that in 97 out of 104 variants the
reading of B has the support of one or more of the other MSS.,

1 #.g. in c, to Mt. xxv. 1, there is the note, “‘sponsa non in omnibus
exemplariis invenitur, nominatim in Alexandrino’’; to Lk. xxii. 43-44, in
Syr. Hier™#, ‘This section is not found in the Gospels among the Alex-
andrians.”’ Cf. Tischendorf, ad loc.

2 W. Bousset, Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament (Leipzig, 1894),
p. 77.

56 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

while there are only five cases in which the others combine
against B, the inference that in at least 90 % of its readings B
preserves the text of the common ancestor of the group can
hardly be resisted.

In 1913 a IV" MS. of John, representing an older form
of the Sahidic, was found in Egypt. Sir E. Maunde Thompson
courteously informed me that, so far as he could judge from a
first rapid examination, its text is akin to Bx.

The Sahidic, the older of the two complete Egyptian versions,
has only recently been made known to the world? in a reliable
form in the magnificent edition of Dr. Horner, along with
the fullest Apparatus Criticus of the Greek text at present
available in English. The Sahidic, it is now clear, goes in the
main with the By text; but in an important minority of
readings it goes over to the side of the text represented by D
and the Old Latin version especially in its African form. From
the figures given in Dr. Horner’s analysis of readings it would
appear (op. cit. 111. p. 387) that for all four Gospels the Sahidic has
505 readings characteristic of D (with or without Latin support)
and 157 distinctively Old Latin. The meaning of this ‘‘ Western”’
element in the Sahidic cannot be appreciated if considered in
isolation. It must be studied in connection with the appearance
of Western readings in x, in L, and in the other MSS. which have
a text akin to B. Of these the most: important are C 33, and,
for Mark, A Ψ.32 Again, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria c. 260,
seems also to have used a form of the B text which had an

1 The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, otherwise
called Sahidic and Thebaic (no name), Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1921.

2 Actually the closest supporters of §% BLT are the two fragments Z 2,
which contain respectively about one-third of the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke, Z being nearer akin to αὶ and = to L. C and 33 have a considerable
mixture of other texts. With a very much greater amount of mixture the
Alexandrian text is preserved in four cursives, 157, 579, 892 (esp. in Mk.), and
1241 (=Sod. ¢371). A few notable readings of the later Alexandrian type are
found in X. Soden, somewhat perversely I think, classes 157 as a supporter
of the “‘I text.’’ He does the same (here I have not checked him) with the
uncial fragments P Q R, except that for John he regards Q as Alexandrian.
For 157 see pp. 49 and 76 note. 892 was collated by J. Rendel Harris, Journal

of Biblical Literature, 1890.

OH. ΠῚ THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES 57

infusion of Western readings. The notable fact, however, is
that whenever one or more of these authorities desert B to give
a Western reading, almost always there are others of them
found ranged in support of B. The natural conclusion to draw
from this is that B represents approximately the oldest text of
Alexandria, but that at a very early date MSS. with a Western
text were in circulation in Egypt. Considering the close connec-
tion between Alexandria and Rome, which was mainly dependent
on Egypt for its corn supply, there must frequently have been
Christians from Rome coming to Egypt on business and bring-
ing with them copies of their Gospels. Odd variants from these
would naturally be entered on the margin of local MSS., and
would thus creep into the text. But, since this happened in a
haphazard way, one set of Western readings would get into one
Egyptian MS., a quite different set into another.

To the view that B represents, not merely the Alexandrian
text but also the earliest form of it, an objection, at first serious,
arises from the Gospel quotations of Clement of Alexandria,
190-200, since these are found to have a specially large infusion
of Western readings.! It ought not, however, to be taken for
granted that these quotations represent an average Alexandrian
text of that date. (1) It is thought by some that his extant
writings were composed after he had left Alexandria. (2)
Clement was not a native of Alexandria, but came there fairly
late in life. He had lived for many years in 8. Italy. Is it
likely that, when he migrated from thence, he left his copy of
the Gospels behind? Clement usually quoted from memory ;
now in regard to the vagaries of the human memory an appeal
to personal experience is valid. I am myself in the habit of
reading the New Testament in the Revised Version, but I was
“brought up” on the Authorised, and it is still the version
commonly read publicly in the Church of England. As a result
of this I find, when revising MS. for the press, that, when I
have quoted from memory, the resultant is nearly always a

1 P. M. Barnard in Texts and Studies, v. 5 (Cambridge, 1899).

58 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

mixture of the old and the new versions. Now, if Clement’s
own copy of the Gospels represented an early form of Western
text but he commonly heard them read in church from a
text akin to B, it would be inevitable—seeing that he was
apparently not interested in textual criticism—that his quota-
tions would represent now one, now the other, type of text. I
would go further and suggest that, as Clement was head
of the catechetical school, his pupils would be likely to note on
the margins of their own copies notable variants from the
master’s; and as these pupils subsequently became leaders
of the Church, the readings from their copies would tend to get
into the texts used in some of the principal churches. In that
case the text of Clement, so far from representing the earliest
text of Alexandria, would be a main source of its decline.

But the determining piece of evidence (cf. p. 93 ff.) that the
B text represents the early text of Alexandria is its use by
Origen in the earlier books (the limitation is intentional) of the
series of homiletical lectures known as his Commentary on John.
Of course the MS. used by Origen was not absolutely identical
in text with B. No two MSS. are exactly identical. Sometimes
Origen agrees with § against B; more rarely he agrees with one
of the other manuscripts belonging to the same family; occasion-
ally he has a reading characteristic of D. The few readings in
which he appears to support the Byzantine text may be suspected
as probably the result of corruption in the text of our only MS. of
this work of his. But, all said and done, it would be safe to say
that the manuscript used by Origen for the first ten books of his
Commentary on John differed from B less than B and x differ from
one another. This evidence is highly important for three reasons.

(1) The Fathers, including Origen himself, frequently quote
from memory ; but in this work, which contains a long series
of quotations from John with a running commentary upon them,
we have absolute security that, in regard at any rate to the
longer quotations, Origen is not quoting from memory but
reproducing a written MS.

on. UI THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SHES 59

(2) Textual criticism belonged to the tradition of Alexandrian
scholarship and it was a subject in which Origen himself was
supremely interested. He had already spent some years on his
famous Hexapla—a critical edition cf the Greek Old Testament.
There is no reason to suppose that at this time he contemplated
a critical edition of the New Testament. But it would be in-
credible that he should not have provided himself with the best
text of the Gospels available, before starting his Commentary
on them. To an Alexandrian critic the best text meant one
based on the oldest MS. procurable. But the oldest MS. which
Origen could procure would have gone behind the time of
Clement, his immediate predecessor in the Catechetical School.
Indeed, its date may well have been nearer the middle than the
end of the second century.

(3) We can exactly date the evidence. Origen himself tells
us that the first five books of the Commentary on John were
written before he left Alexandria for good and migrated to
Caesarea. This took place in the year 231. We have therefore
a fixed point for the textual criticism of the Gospels. The text
of the Gospels preserved in B (practically, that is, the text
printed by Westcott and Hort) is to all intents and purposes
the text on which Origen lectured in Alexandria in the year 230.

In the quotations of the Alexandrian fathers, especially in
Cyril (ἃ. 444), and in the Bohairic version—which on the whole is ©
even closer to B than is the Sahidic—occur a number of readings
which look like attempts at grammatical and stylistic improve-
ments of the B text. Readings of this class crop up in all the
Alexandrian MSS., except B. Some are found even in §; but
they occur most thickly in L, and next to that ἴῃ Ὁ 88 Ξ A™* pM.
An importance greater than either their number or their char-
acter deserves was attributed to them by Hort. Hort declined
to recognise any connection of Bx with Alexandria; the Bx
text he named the “ Neutral text,” and assigned it to no
definite locality. And he gave the name “ Alexandrian” to a
text conceived of as the B text modified by the minor stylistic

60 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

improvements found in the readings of C L 33, etc., wherever
these differ from both B and the ‘“‘ Western” texts in any
readings not also found in the “Syrian” (=Byzantine) text.
This so-called ‘‘ Alexandrian ” text he described as “ a partially
degenerate form of the B text.” While admitting that no
single MS. preserved this text entire, he ranged it alongside the
“Neutral” and “ Western” as one of three great families of
pre-Byzantine, or, to use his own title, “ pre-Syrian,” texts.
It is generally recognised that this was a mistake. MSS. in
which readings of this type are found may well be described in
Hort’s words as exhibiting “a partially degenerate form of the
B text.” But all of them include a number of Western readings ;
and there is no evidence that any MS. ever existed which con-
tained what Hort calls the “ Alexandrian ” readings but did not
also include many Western readings. Nor is it certain that the
whole number of the ‘“ Alexandrian” readings ever coexisted
in any single MS. It is quite as likely that ‘‘ Alexandrian ”
stylistic correction and infiltration of Western readings were two
concurrent processes gradual in character acting upon individual
MSS. in the natural course of textual corruption, and thus
affecting different MSS. in different degrees.

If, however, we use a word like “ corruption ” or “ degenera-
tion’ in this connection, we must be on our guard against an
easy fallacy. Any departures in these MSS. from the B type,
which are of the nature of grammatical and stylistic correction,
are ‘‘ corruptions ” in the strictest sense of the term ; that is to
say, they are alterations, intentional or accidental, of what the
original authors wrote. But departures from the B text which
consist in the substitution of a reading found in ancient
authorities belonging to the Western family are corruptions in a
quite different sense. In so far as they are departures from
the oldest form of the Egyptian text they are a degeneration
of that particular textual tradition. But the Western authorities
represent a textual tradition of great antiquity belonging to a
different locality, and it may well happen that they sometimes

oH. 1π THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES 61

preserve a true reading which has been lost in the B text. This
is a point on which clear thinking is extremely necessary. To
say that the text of B is a purer representative of its type than
x is by no means the same thing as saying that it is a purer
representative of the original text of the Gospels as the authors
wrote it. That is quite a different question. For example, the
incident of the Bloody Sweat (Lk. xxi. 43 f.) was, I am inclined
to think, in the original copy of Luke’s Gospel. If so, δ, which
contains the passage, preserves the true text; B, which omits
it, does not. But a comparison of the MSS. and Versions which
contain or reject the passage shows that its absence is char-
acteristic of the particular line of textual transmission which
x B on the whole represent. If so, its presence in & is due to
“ contamination” with a MS. of the ‘“ Western” type. But
what follows? Whenever δαὶ has a “ Western” reading, it ceases
to be an authority for the Alexandrian text ; but it becomes for
the time being the oldest Greek MS. with a “‘ Western”’ text.
To put it metaphorically, B is a thoroughbred ; y is a cross, but
a cross between two thoroughbreds of different stocks. Hence,
as evidence for what the authors wrote, the ‘ Western ”’ readings
of καὶ are a most valuable authority ; but, if we mistake them for
evidence of the primitive text of Alexandria, we fall into hopeless
confusion. The reader may ejaculate that he is not interested
in the primitive text of Alexandria, but only in what the original
authors wrote. In textual criticism there are no short cuts;
and, since local texts of the Gospels came into existence in the
second century, it will not be till we have got back to these in
their most primitive form that we have all the materials on
which to base our judgement as to what the original authors
wrote.

CoRRECTED ALEXANDRIAN TEXTS

The fortunate preservation of representatives of the Alex-
andrian text so ancient and relatively pure as By presents us
with an exceptionally favourable opportunity of studying the

62 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. I

phenomenon of correction of MSS. of an ancient local text to
the Byzantine standard. It will be instructive to consider some
examples of this.

The first point to notice is that correction was often ex-
tremely “patchy” and unsystematic. Thus the corrector of
s, whom Tischendorf styles ΝΡ, corrected the earlier chapters
of Matthew with scrupulous care; ‘ut his interest in the work
seems to have flagged, and he makes few corrections in the
latter part and hardly any in the other Gospels. This actual
instance of a corrector’s work explains at once a peculiarity of
L, an ancestor of which must have suffered a similar fate; for
the text of L is almost the Byzantine in Mt. i.-xvii., but it has
only a thin sprinkling of Byzantine readings in the latter part
of Matthew and in the other Gospels The V or VI°™*
correctors of δ, however, whom Tischendorf calls x° and »°,
were more systematic than x. Indeed, if s had been copied
after these various correctors had finished, the result would
have been a mixed text of components and general character
very like C, which has a large proportion of Byzantine (and a
few miscellaneous) readings in all four Gospels, but more so in
Matthew and Luke than in Mark and John.

The XIII°** cursive 579 (cf. p. 50) has in Matthew an
ordinary Byzantine text. In the other Gospels, especially in
Luke, it has a considerable number of Alexandrian readings. In
the Introduction to his edition of this MS., Schmidtke gives
a list of readings in which it differs from the Byzantine text in
order to support one or other member of the Alexandrian group.
On the basis of these lists 1 have compiled the following figures :
agreements with Bx, 31; with B against x, 132; with x against
B, 111; with one or other of the group C L 33 A Ψ 892 against
both B and x, 134. We must, however, recollect that the
Byzantine text is much more closely allied to the Alexandrian
than to the Western. Hence the great majority of the agree-

1 Interesting figures as to Byzantine correction in L, C and A may be found
in E. A. Hutton, An Atlas of Textual Criticism, p. 13 (Cambridge, 1911).

CH. I THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES 63

ments of 579 with » B C L 33 are necessarily excluded from a list
of readings which purports to include only differences between
579 and the Byzantine text. Again, many of the readings in
which Bs agree against that text are of a conspicuous nature,
and therefore would be particularly likely to attract the notice
of the corrector. Bearing this in mind, the interest of the above
figures is the demonstrative proof they afford that, although the
majority of readings in 579 are in agreement with the Byzantine
text, an ancestor must have been a MS. the text of which stood
right in the middle of the Egyptian group of MSS. The value
of a MS. of this kind appears where it supports a reading of
B, s or L, which otherwise is unsupported. Every MS. has a
larger or smaller number of errors due to mistakes by the scribe
who wrote it or one of its immediate ancestors. Such errors in
no sense constitute readings characteristic of the local text
which the MS. as a whole represents. If, however, a “‘ singular ”’
reading of any MS. is supported by another MS., which on other
grounds we can connect with the same family, we have sufficient
proof that the reading in question is not an accident or
idiosyncrasy of the particular MS. in which it occurs. If that
MS. happens to be B or x, such support for “ singular ” readings
is of special interest.

Another point about mixed texts is illustrated from the
Egyptian group. Except in Mark, A and W have the ordinary
Byzantine text with a few scattered readings of the later
Alexandrian type; but in Mark this state of things is exactly
reversed. The fundamental text is the later Alexandrian with
a few scattered Byzantine readings—the proportion of Alex-
andrian readings in the other Gospels being rather larger
in VY than in A. If these two MSS. stood alone we should
infer that Mark was copied from an exemplar belonging to a
different family from that used for the other Gospels. But
these two MSS. are only an extreme example of a regularly
recurrent phenomenon. A study of mixed texts belonging to
other families than the Alexandrian shows that it is not the

64 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

exception but the rule for the Gospel of Mark to have a much
smaller proportion of Byzantine readings than the other Gospels.
Nearly every one of the MSS. of which the text is discussed in
our next chapter exhibits this—more especially the Codex Theo-
dorae 565. The phenomenon must, therefore, be explained on
the hypothesis that these MSS. were copied from exemplars in
which the text in all four Gospels had originally been pre-
Byzantine, but which had been more thoroughly corrected to
the standard text in the first three Gospels than in Mark. Mark
provided very few lessons for the selection read in the public
services of the Church. It was much less used and much less
commented on than the other Gospels; of this an interesting
illustration is the X°°"* MS. X, which has a marginal commentary
on the three longer Gospels, but merely gives the bare text of
Mark. Hence the comparative carelessness shown in correcting
Mark to the fashionable type of text is easily accounted for.

There emerges a principle of some importance, but one
which heretofore has been insufficiently emphasised. Seeing
that the Gospel of Mark has escaped Byzantine revision in more
copies and to a greater extent than the other Gospels, it follows
that our materials for reconstructing the old local texts are far
more abundant and more trustworthy in this Gospel. From
this we deduce the following canon of textual criticism.
Research into the pedigree of a MS. should begin with a study
of its text of Mark.

THe WESTERN TEXT

Jerome’s Vulgate, as has been already indicated, played in
the Latin Church the same part as the Byzantine text in the
Greek. The process of haphazard correction of older MSS. to
the standard text resulted in the production of a number of copies
having a mixed text, partly Vulgate, partly Old Latin. Fortun-
ately, besides these, a few MSS. with a text entirely Old Latin, or
with only a small admixture of Vulgate readings, still survive.
These differ from one another very considerably ; and they differ

on. I THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES 65

even more in the Latin words chosen to represent the Greek than
in the underlying Greek text they presuppose. Hence many
scholars think there must have originally been two independent
translations from the Greek, which subsequently have become
somewhat confused by mixture with one another as a result of
sporadic correction of MSS. of the one translation by MSS. of the
other. However this may be, it is the fact that the Old Latin
MSS.—which it is customary fo cite by small italic letters—sort
themselves roughly into two main groups, of which the most
typical representatives are k (Bobiensis) and ὦ (Veronensis).

One of the most important contributions to the criticism of
the Gospels made in recent years was the demonstration by Dr.
Sanday that the text of ὦ is to all intents and purposes identical
with that used by Cyprian of Carthage c. 250. This gives us
another fixed point towards the determination of early local texts.
Accordingly the type of text found in kis commonly spoken of
as the ‘“‘ African Latin.” Unfortunately & is only extant for
Mk. viii.-xvi. and Matt. i-xv. But another MS. e (Palatinus),
also incomplete, while overlapping with k& to some small extent,
contains those parts of the Four Gospels which in ἦς are missing.
In e we have a somewhat later form of the same text as kh, with a
slight mixture of European Latin readings. In fact the type of
text in e has much the same relation to that of k as L bears to B.
The African text, so far as Mark and Luke are concerned, is also
supported by’c, a twelfth-century MS. which has a text, roughly
speaking, half Vulgate and half Old Latin, though in the other
Gospels the Old Latin approximates nearer to the type of b.}
The Speculum, a collection of proof-texts, cited as m, perhaps of
Spanish origin, helps to eke out our scanty authorities for this
African Latin text.

Tertullian, the predecessor of Cyprian at Carthage, speaks of
the Apostolic Sees, with special reference to Rome, as the “ wombs

1 Cf. F. C. Burkitt, J.7'.S., Jan. 1908, p. 307 ff. The Old Latin and the Itala
(Texts and Studies, iv. 3, 1896) by the same author must be read by all
students of the Latin versions.

66 THE FOUR GOSPELS pT. I

of the Catholic Church.” ! From this and from the general
probabilities of the case we may tentatively infer that African
Christianity came from Rome, and that the African Latin was
ultimately derived from an early form of Roman text. Further
evidence, slight but pointing in the same direction, may be seen
in the noticeable points of contact between the African Latin
MSS. and Fathers and what little we know of the text of Marcion,
who was in Rome 140-144. The African Latin, it is important
to notice, in many of its readings agrees with B s against the type
of Old Latin of which I will now proceed to speak.

The other type of the Old Latin is called by some scholars the
“ Kuropean,” by others the “ Italic.” The MS. that occupies the
same sort of central position among the European Latin MSS. as
B does among the Alexandrian is, curiously enough, denoted by
the letter b (Veronensis). As the Dean of Christ Church puts it,
“δ᾽ indeed seems to be almost a typical European MS.; as the
other MSS. of European and of Italian origin, such asa fhiqr,
all resemble ὃ more closely than they resemble each other.” 2. The
most constant supporter of ὁ is ff? (Corbiensis II.). Of the MS.
mentioned above the oldest 8 is a (Vercellensis) [V°°"*. This MS.,
supported by the fragment n, stands a little apart from the others.
The difference between a and ὦ is at its maximum in Mark, so that
the critical canon just enunciated justifies the suspicion that it
may possibly represent a third local type, intermediate between
b and k, which in the other Gospels has been partially conformed
to the b text.4

1 De Praescr. Haer, 21.

2H. J. White, Old Latin Biblical Texts, ii. Ὁ. xxii., Oxford, 1888. This
vol. contains an edition of qg, the Introduction to which is invaluable to the
student of Old Latin texts.

3 Burkitt argues that k also is [Vet (J.7'.8., Oct. 1903, p. 107); 6 and e
are uniformly dated Vt., ff? V or VIcent.,

4 The VIeent. MS. f (Brixianus) has a large number of readings which
occur in the Byzantine text but not in other Old Latin MSS. ; many of these
occur in the Vulgate. There is a difference of opinion among experts as to
whether this MS. represents an attempt earlier than Jerome’s to revise the

Latin by comparison with the Greek, or whether it is a Vulgate MS. corrupted
by the influence of the text of the Gothic version, as it seems to have been

CH. ΠῚ THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES 67

Of the European Latin as a whole it may be said that it repre-
sents a type of text at the furthest remove from that of B. And
even the African Latin, which in small points frequently deserts
the European to support B, is conspicuous for the number of strik-
ing additions—“ interpolations’? Hort calls them—to the B text.

The Roman theologians, up to and including Hippolytus, d. 236,
wrote in Greek ; and the liturgy of the Roman Church was in
Greek possibly till an even later date. The number of quotations
in the fragments of Marcion or in the writings of Justin and
Hippolytus sufficiently definite to be used for critical purposes is
not very large, but such as they are they imply the use of a Greek
text, roughly speaking, corresponding to the Old Latin. We know
also that the Diatessaron or Harmony of the Four Gospels com-
piled by Tatian was produced about 170, either during, or im-
mediately after, his long residence in Rome ; and this had a text
of the same character. But the use of the Greek language slowly
died out in the West. Hence it is not surprising that we have
few MSS. which preserve the type of Greek text used in the West
during the period when Greek was still spoken there. For the
Epistles of St. Paul four such survive ; but for the Gospels until
tecently there was only one, the Codex Bezae D.

Being practically the sole representative of the Greek text
used in the West towards the end of the second century, D has a
quite unique importance, and a large literature has come into
existence about it. Its text stands fairly well in the middle of
the various MSS. of the Old Latin. Where these differ from one
another, D sometimes supports one type, sometimes another ;
but on the whole it is nearer to the European than to the African
type. In a certain number of readings it supports B against the
Old Latin; in a much larger number it agrees with B against the
Byzantine text. Its date, according to the latest authority, is
fifth century.

copied from the Latin side of a bilingual Gothic-Latin MS. Cf. Wordsworth
and White, Nov. Test... . Hieronymt, p. 656, and Ἐς C. Burkitt, J.7.S.,
Oct. 1899.

68 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT.

D is a bilingual MS., having the Greek on the left, the Latin
on the right-hand page.1_ Theodore Beza, who presented the
MS. to the University of Cambridge, states that it was found
in the monastery of St. Irenaeus at Lyons; and Dr. E. A.
Lowe 2 produces good reasons for the belief that it was already
in Lyons in the ninth century. Where it was originally written
is a question on which there is at present no agreement among
experts. Southern Italy, Sardinia, or the Rhone valley are
the favourite guesses. In favour of the last-mentioned locality
is the close relation of the text of D to that used by Irenaeus,
Bishop of Lyons c. 177-195. This relation was noted long
ago, but is re-affirmed with further confirmation in Sanday
and Turner’s recent edition of the New Testament Text of
Irenaeus. We may, however, infer that it was written in
some rather out-of-the-way church or monastery, for two
reasons. First, the corruptions in the text imply an ignorant
scribe. Secondly, the story of the man working on the Sabbath
inserted by D after Lk. vi. 4, and the attempt to assimilate the
genealogy of our Lord in Luke to that found in Matthew, are
readings so remarkable that they almost demand comment. Yet,
to the best of my knowledge, no allusion is made to either by any
ecclesiastical writer. This is easily explicable if these readings
were current only in some out-of-the-way church.

The solitary position of D as the Greek representative of the
Old Latin text has been partially relieved, so far as the Gospel of
Mark is concerned, by the discovery in 1906 of W (the Freer
MS. V°""-), the possession of which gives the library of Washington
the distinction of containing one of the six most ancient copies of
the Gospels. The text of W presents a unique problem. Its
editor, Prof. A. T. Sanders,‘ thinks it is descended from an ancestor

1 Tt is customary to cite the Latin half of D, which not infrequently differs
from the Greek, as d. Similarly the (far less important) interlinear Latin of
A is cited as δ.

* J.T.8., April 1924, p. 270 ff.

3 Novum Testamentum S. Irenaei (Oxford, 1923).

4 Cf. the elaborate introduction to his collation of W, The New Testament
MSS. in the Freer Collection, Part I. (The Macmillan Co., New York, 1912),

CH, I THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES 69

made up of fragments from different rolls of the Gospels pieced
together in some district where the attempt of Diocletian to crush
Christianity by destroying the sacred books had been more than
usually successful. Some portions seem to have been drastically
revised to conform to the B x, others to the Byzantine, text. In,
the whole of Matthew and in Lk. vii. 13 to the end it presents a
text mainly Byzantine; since most of Matthew is wanting in A
(the only other MS. as early as the fifth century which gives a text
closely allied to the Byzantine) we have in W a welcome accession
to the early evidence for this type of text. For the first seven
chapters of Luke and in John (v. 12 to the end) the text of W is
mainly of the Alexandrian type. But the most notable feature
of W is its text of Mk. i.-v. 30. This is almost word for word
identical with the Greek text underlying the African Latin e.
Unfortunately hardly anything of Mark after vi. 9 is preserved
ἴῃ 6 ; sono comparison of W and eis possible in the later chapters ;
but in the rest of Mark W is still found to agree, though less
closely, with the Old Latin and especially with &. So far, then,
as the Gospel of Mark is concerned we have in W a valuable
addition to the evidence afforded by D for the ancient Greek text
current in the West—to which text alone the title ‘“‘ Western ”
will in these chapters be applied.

Tue Text or EPHEsus

Constantinople, as we shall see shortly, appears to have
adopted its text as well as its theology from Antioch. It was
inevitable, therefore, that at Ephesus, situated as it was between
these two dominant patriarchates, the old local text should
succumb at an early date to the standard text used by both
these Sees. There is reason to believe that some time in the
fourth century Ephesus was compelled to surrender its ancient
liturgy in favour of the Byzantine.1 But there is a certain
amount of evidence that in the second century the text used at
Ephesus was akin to that found in D and the European Latin.

1 W. Palmer, Origines Liturgicae, i. 106.

70 THE FOUR GOSPELS pr. 1

(1) The recently discovered second-century document known
as the Epistula Apostolorum is supposed by its editor Carl
Schmidt! to be of Ephesian origin. The evidence adduced is
not conclusive, but this view is more probable than any other.
The author of this work is clearly familiar with all four Gospels.
But for our present purpose the most interesting point is that
he seems to have read them in a text like-that we call Western
in the strictest geographical sense.

(a) In ch. 2 he has a very remarkable list of the apostles in
which the name of John stands first ; and one of the names is
Judas Zelotes. It might have been imagined that this was due to
a conjectural combination, made by the author himself, between
the names of the two apostles mentioned in Lk. vi. 16, Judas of
James and Simon Zelotes: but this same combination, Judas
Zelotes, occurs (Mt. x. 3) as a substitute for the ordinary
Thadaeus=Lebbaeus in the Old Latin abhqetc. It also
occurs in the fifth-century mosaics in the Baptistry of the
Orthodox at Ravenna, which are in another respect connected
with the Western text, in so much as they arrange the evan-
gelists in the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, found in D,
W, several Old Latin MSS., and in the Monarchian Prologues
(p. 11).

(b) In ch. 3 ad fin. we read ‘“ He is the word made flesh, born
in the sacred Virgin’s womb, conceived by the Holy Ghost, not
by carnal lust, but by the will of God.” This seems to imply
the famous Western reading of Jn. i. 13, which substitutes
ds... ἐγενήθη for οὗ... ἐγενήθησαν and thereby makes
the fourth Gospel also assert the Virgin Birth of Christ. This
reading is found in ὦ, in three quotations of Irenaeus, two of
Tertullian, and was also known to Ambrose, Augustine, and
probably to Justin Martyr.

1 In Texte und Untersuchungen, 1919.
2 Cf. C. Schmidt, op. cit. pp. 219, 224, also below, p. 348.

CH. ΠῚ THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES 71

It is absent from the African Latin, from the oldest Alexandrian
MSS., from the majority and the oldest MSS. known to Eusebius
of Caesarea, from Syr. 8., which seems to represent the old text
of Antioch, and from the Eastern authorities mentioned p. 88.
But it is found in D, in all Old Latin MSS. except &, and in the
text used by Irenaeus and Tatian.

These striking agreements between the text quoted in a
document of the second century, probably Ephesian, and the
text used in Italy and Gaul, compel us to review the nature of
the patristic evidence for the Western text. We notice at once
a special connection between most of our earliest authorities for
the Western text and the Roman province of Asia of which
Ephesus was the capital.

(a) Justin Martyr was converted to Christianity in Ephesus ;
and according to the evidence given by himself at his trial,
though he had lived and taught in Rome, he had done so
without any very close affiliation to the local Church.! The
text of the Gospels he used is therefore more likely than
not to have been the one he brought from Ephesus. Tatian
was a pupil of Justin, and may well have used his master’s
text.

(b) Irenaeus as a boy sat at the feet of Polycarp of Smyrna,
and never tires of emphasising the value of the apostolic
tradition of the Churches of Asia and Rome. But the con-
nection between Asia and the Church of Lyons, of which
Irenaeus was a member and ultimately bishop, was in no sense
personal to Irenaeus himself. Eusebius preserves the letter
written by the Churches of Lyons and Vienne to the Church of
Ephesus to tell them the story of the martyrdoms in the perse-
cution of 177. This implies a special affiliation of these Gallic
Churches to the Church of Asia. The Greek-speaking com-
munities of the Rhone valley seem always to have kept up a
connection, mainly no doubt for trade purposes, with the cities

1 Cf. the Martyrdom of Justin and the discussion by K. Lake, Landmarks
of Early Christianity, p. 127 (Macmillan, 1920).

72 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

of Ionia, of which they had originally been colonies. [Ὁ is, there-
fore, exceedingly probable that the Christianity of the Rhone
valley was derived from Ephesus. In that case the text of the
Gospels used there would naturally be the Ephesian text.

(c) Since Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus all resided and taught
in Rome, some readings from the text they used would get into
the local text. The text of Irenaeus, we have seen is closely
related to that of D and the Old Latin. This suggests the
possibility that the earliest Latin translation used in Gaul was
derived, not from the Greek text used in Rome, but from that
used in the Rhone valley. This translation might have spread
thence into Gallia Cisalpina, the consanguineous district of
N. Italy.

The evidence available is quite insufficient to justify any
definite conclusion, but it at least suggests the tentative
hypothesis that while regarding the African Latin as a de-
scendant of the older Roman text, we should look on D and
the European Latin as representing a mixture, varying with
individual MSS., between the Roman and the Ephesian text.

THe Op Text or ANTIOCH

We pass on to consider a field of inquiry which more than
any other has been illuminated by recent discovery—the old
local texts of the Asiatic provinces of the Roman Empire. When
Hort wrote, the materials at the disposal of critics were insufficient
to justify any definite conclusion, and we are still hampered by
the lack of ecclesiastical writers from whose quotations of the
New Testament the type of text current in these provinces can
be ascertained. In fact the only early writer native to these
provinces of whom enough survives to be of any practical use for
this purpose is the historian, Eusebius.of Caesarea, c. 325. It had

1 Three inscriptions have been found in Lyons set up by persons described
as natione Graeca, and one by a lady, natione Asiana. Cf. Vasile Parvan, Die
Nationalitdt der Kaufleute im romischen Kaiserreiche, pp. 90, 107 (Breslau,
1919).

ou. ΤΠ THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES 73

long been recognised that Eusebius used a ‘“‘ Western”’ text, but
one of a peculiar kind, that is to say, a text which, although more
closely allied to D than to x B L, is markedly distinct from D.
But the only MS. giving a continuous text of early date which
could be certainly assigned to the Eastern provinces was the
fragmentary Cureton MS. of the Old Syriac version (Syr. C.), which
contains less than half the total contents of the Gospels, and of
Mark only four verses. Hence Hort was justified in including the
Old Syriac and the sporadic non-Byzantine readings of a similar
character found in cursives like 565 or the Ferrar group under
the general designation of the ‘‘ Western text ”—a title which he
inherited from Griesbach,—although he quite recognised the geo-
graphical inappropriateness of this extended use of the adjective.

Since Hort wrote, the situation has been completely changed
by a series of discoveries. Of these the one which has opened up
the prospect of our obtaining at least a general idea of the ancient
text of Antioch was the discovery in 1892 of the Sinaitic Syriac
(which I shall cite as ὅσ. 8.), a fourth-century palimpsest con-
taining, with some lacunae, a fairly complete text of the Four
Gospels in the Old Syriac version. The Syriac text of Syr. 8S. and
Syr. C., along with an English translation, purposely so literal that
even the order of words in the original can often be followed, was
published in 1904 by F. C. Burkitt under the title Evangelion
Da-Mepharreshe =“ Gospel of the Separate,’ as distinguished
from the Diatessaron or ‘“‘ Gospel of the Mixed.” The Intro-
duction and Notes to this edition form a contribution to textual
criticism the value of which to the advanced student cannot be
over-estimated.

It appears that Syr. 8S. and Syr. C. represent fundamentally
the same version, but that one or the other must have been
revised partially from a Greek MS. having a slightly different
type of text. Burkitt thinks that Syr. S. gives the version most
nearly in its original form, while Syr. C. has been revised here and
there by a Greek MS. more or less similar to the Codex Bezae.
However this may be, the fact remains that the version as a

74 THE FOUR GOSPELS pr. I

whole is more closely allied to the Western text than to B,
although Syr. S., especially in the matter of omission, frequently
supports B against both Syr. C. and D. For instance, it omits
the last twelve verses of Mark and the two notable passages
Lk. xxii. 43 (the Bloody Sweat) and Lk. xxiii. 34 (“ Father,
forgive them’’). But, though on the whole it ranges itself on
the side of D and the Old Latin against B and its allies, the
Old Syriac has a sufficiently large number of distinctive readings
found neither in D nor B to justify our regarding it as a third
type of text.

Burkitt was, I believe, the first to work out in any detail the
suggestion that the Greek text underlying the version of the Old
Syriac preserved in Syr. S. was derived from the older text of
Antioch.!_ His argument, briefly, is as follows. Tatian, who
seems to have been the first effectively to plant Christianity in
Mesopotamia, introduced there, not the Four Gospels, but the
Syriac Diatessaron—which for centuries was spoken of as “ the
Gospel.” The Four Gospels, known by contrast to the Diates-
saron as “‘ the Gospel of the Separate,” were a later introduction.
Syr. S. seems to be an earlier form than Syr. C. of the Syriac
version of the Separate Gospels. Its translator was familiar
with the Diatessaron, and its readings, as well as its renderings,
may sometimes have been affected by that fact; hence the
original Greek text from which Syr. 8. was translated will have
differed from the Diatessaron even more than does the transla-
tion. Now the text of the Diatessaron is closely akin to D and
the Old Latin. This resemblance, coupled with the fact that
Tatian came from Rome about a.p. 172, makes it highly probable
that the text used for the Diatessaron was the Roman text.
Where, then, did the text of Syr. S. come from ? Geographically,
the province of which Antioch is capital marched with the
Syriac-speaking district. More than this, there is evidence that,
after the disorganisation caused by a period of persecution,
Serapion the Patriarch of Antioch, c. A.p. 200, re-established the

1 Hvangelion Da-Mepharreshe, ii. p. 254.

CH. ΠῚ THE TEXTS OF THE GREAT SEES 15

Syriac Church by consecrating Palit, the bishop from whom in
after years that Church reckoned its episcopal succession. Thus
the revived Syriac-speaking Church was in a special way a
daughter church of Antioch, and would naturally obtain there-
from the text of the “separate’’ Gospels which hitherto it
did not possess. The presumption, then, that the Old Syriac
represents the second-century text of Antioch is decidedly high.
Moreover, I would observe, to any one who prefers the view
of certain scholars that the old Syriac version of the Gospels is
earlier than the Diatessaron, the presumption that its text came
from Antioch is considerably enhanced ; for the only reasonable
ground for doubting the Antiochene origin of the Syriac text
arises from the known connection of Tatian with Rome.

Burkitt points out that a number of readings of the Old
Syriac, which are not found in any other Greek MS., occur in
one or more of the cursives 1 &c., 18 &c., 28, 565, 700. Those
MSS., I shall argue in the next chapter, preserve (with much
Byzantine admixture) the old text of Caesarea. Seeing that
Caesarea and Antioch were the capitals of adjoining provinces.
the discovery that those MSS. represent the text of Caesarea
cannot but add weight to the view that the cognate text
implied in the Old Syriac has some special connection with the
neighbouring Church of Antioch.

Any evidence is welcome which throws further light on the
true text of a version which survives only in two MSS., both im-
perfect. For this purpose some use can be made of the Peshitta
—the Syriac version used at the present day in all branches of
the Syriac-speaking Church. Of this we have MSS. as early as
the fifth century. Burkitt} hasshown that the Peshitta represents
a vevision of the Old Syriac made by Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa,
about 425. The MSS. used by Rabbula evidently represented
the Byzantine text, and his revision was fairly thorough.
Nevertheless the number of readings of the Old Syriac which

1 «8S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospels,” in J'exts and Studies, vii. 2
(Cambridge, 1901).

76 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. [

survive in the Peshitta is considerable, though the proportion
which these bear to the whole is less than that borne by the
Old Latin readings surviving in Jerome’s Vulgate. Wherever,
therefore, the reading implied in the Peshitta differs from that
of the Byzantine text, there is a fair presumption that it repre-
sents the reading of an Old Syriac MS.

The other Syriac versions are of less value as evidence for the
text of the Old Syriac. We have a number of MSS. of a revision
made for the Jacobite sect by Thomas of Harkel in 616 ; but this
revision went still further in the direction of assimilating the
Syriac to the Byzantine Greek text. He noted in the margin
the readings of three old Greek MSS. in the Gospels and of one
in the Acts which differed from the Byzantine text. These read-
ings (cited as Syr. Hcl™®:) are of considerable interest ; but their
importance lies in the evidence they afford for pre-Byzantine
Greek texts, not for the light they throw on the Old Syriac.

Much the same may be said of the “ Palestinian’ or
“ Jerusalem ” Syriac (cited as Syr. Hier.). Burkitt has shown
that this was not a native Palestinian product.!_ It was produced
in a monastery near Antioch as part of an effort of Justinian to
combat Nestorianism in Palestine by providing orthodox litera-
ture in the vernacular. It is probable that the translators made
some use of previous Syriac versions, but Syr. Hier. cannot be
safely quoted as an authority for the Old Syriac—still less, as
von Soden thought, for the Greek text used at Jerusalem.?

The Armenian version is held by Dean Armitage Robinson ὃ
to have been originally made, wholly or in part, from the Old
Syriac. In that case it may be used as supplementary evidence
for the original form of that version. This view, however, has
lately been disputed (cf. p. 104); I shall venture later on
(p. 104 f.) to put forward a suggestion of my own in regard to
the most debateable point.

1 J.T.8., Jan. 1901, pp. 174 ff.

2 Hoskier, J.7'.8., Jan. 1913, p. 242, notes points of contact between the
text of this version and the mixed cursive 157.

3 Cf. ‘‘ Kuthaliana ᾿ in Teats and Studies, iii. 3 (1895).

IV
THE KORIDETHI MS. AND THE TEXT OF CAESAREA

SYNOPSIS

THe O FamILy

The new Koridethi MS. Θ has been shown by K. Lake to be the
most important member of a family of MSS. of which the most
important are the cursives 1 &c., 18 &c., 28, 585, 700. Accordingly
the whole group may appropriately be styled fam.9@. Hach member
of this family has been partially corrected to the Byzantine standard ;
but, since in each a different set of passages has been so corrected, we
can, by the simple expedient of ignoring the Byzantine readings,
approximately restore the text of the original ancestor. This
illustrated by a Table. In an Appendix evidence is adduced for
assigning to fam. 9 certain other less important MSS., in particular
the group 1424 &c.

RELATION TO OTHER ANCIENT TEXTS

(1) The text of fam. 9 is slightly, but only slightly, nearer to the
Western than to the Alexandrian type; also it has a large and
clearly defined set of readings peculiar to itself.

(2) In ἔχηι. are found certain striking additions to the T.R. which
the Syriac shares with D and the Old Latin, beside others found only
in the Syriac or Armenian.

(3) As regards, however, the longer omissions from the T.R.
found in B and Syr. 8., fam. 0 nearly always supports the shorter text.

(4) Fam. 9 is nearer to the Old Syriac than is any other surviving
Greek text, but it is by no means identical ; it is frequently supported
by the Armenian against the Syriac. Most frequently of all it is
supported by the oldest MSS. of the Georgian version.

0 AND THE ΤΈΧΤ oF ORIGEN

Griesbach discovered that Origen used two different texts of
Mark ; but, owing to the paucity of MS. evidence then available, he
77

78 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT.

slightly misinterpreted the facts. These are as follows. In the
surviving portions of the first ten books of his Commentary on John,
Origen used the B & text of Mark; but in the later books of this
work, in his Commentary on Matthew and his Exhortation to Martyrdom,
he used a text practically identical with that of fam. 0. The Com-
mentary on John was begun in Alexandria but finished at Caesarea,
and both the other works mentioned were written at Caesarea.

It further appears that the text of Matthew used by Origen in his
Commentary on that Gospel was the fam. © text—-a fact partly
disguised in the printed editions in which the text of fam. 0 has been
sporadically corrected to the Byzantine standard. Throughout the
Commentary on John, Origen used an Alexandrian text of John, but
in the later books he changed his text for one of the O type. These
conclusions tested against tables drawn up by Preuschen. At a later
date Origen seems to have used the © text for John also.

Reasons for believing that the fam. Θ text was already in possession
at Caesarea when Origen arrived and was not a recension which he
made himself.

Tue MSS. sent TO CONSTANTINE

The possibility that the fifty copies supplied by Eusebius to
Constantine in 331 represented the old text of Caesarea. By 380
Constantinople had adopted the revised text of Lucian. This would
lead to the correction of the older MSS. to the Lucianie (7.e., practi-
cally, to the Byzantine) standard. Some of these partially corrected
copies would get into the provinces, and may be the parents of some
existing MSS. of fam. 0. Possibility that the Greek texts used by
SS. Mesrop and Sahak to revise the Armenian were of this character.

ConcLUDING SURVEY

Significant fact that the local texts identified above form a series
corresponding to the geographical propinquity of the churches with
which they are connected.

Practical bearing of these results. The textual critic, in weighing
the amount of external evidence in favour of any reading, should
consider primarily, not the number or age of the MSS. which support
it, but the number and geographical distribution of the ancient local
texts in which it can be traced.

It follows that MSS. should be cited, not in alphabetical or
numerical order, but in groups corresponding to the local texts which
they represent. When at least three of the leading representatives of
any local text support a reading, very little is gained by citing the
additional evidence of MSS. which normally support the same local
text.

CHAPTER IV
THE KORIDETHI MS. AND THE TEXT OF CAESAREA

THe © FamILy

THE uncial MS. to which the letter © is assigned was discovered
in a remote valley in the Caucasus, where it had long been a kind
of village fetish ; but at a much earlier date it belonged to a
monastery at Koridethi—at the far end of the Black Sea just
inside the old frontier between Russia and Turkey. Owing to
a chapter of accidents—including a disappearance for thirty
years—its complete text only became available to scholars in
1913.1 Dr. R. P. Blake, in a joint article by himself and Prof.
K. Lake in the Harvard Theological Review for July 1923, argues
that the scribe was a Georgian, familiar with the Coptic script,
but extremely ignorant of Greek. At any rate the ordinary
tests by which the handwriting of MSS. can be dated are
difficult to apply ; but it probably belongs to the eighth century.

The discovery is comparable in importance to that of x or the
Sinaitic Syriac—but for a different reason. The importance of x
and Syr. S. depends on their early date and the relative purity
of the types of text they respectively preserve. © is neither so
old nor so pure: it has suffered considerably from Byzantine
revision. Its importance lies in the fact that it supplies a

1 In the edition by G. Beerman and C. R. Gregory, Leipzig, 1913. The
student should be warned that the Appendix which gives the MS. support of
all variants in 6 is quite unreliable so far as its cursive supporters are con-
cerned. As the MSS. most closely allied to © are all cursives, this is a serious
defect. An edition of ©,*in reduced facsimile, with Mark was published by

the Moscow Archeological Society, 1907 ; but this is not easily procured.
79

80 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

missing Jink and enables us to see the real connection between
certain cursives, the exceptional character of which has long
been an enigma to the critic. In the demonstration of the
relation between © and this group of cursives, the first and most
important step was made by Lake in the brilliant article referred
to above in the Harvard Theological Review.

The.cursives in question are the following: (a) Codex 1 and
its allies, commonly cited as fam.1, or 1 &c. Of this family of
MSS. the only one comparable in importance to 1 is 1582
(X°""-) recently discovered in the Vatopedi Monastery on Mt.
Athos. But the inferior members occasionally preserve original
readings which have been revised out in the two better MSS.!
(δ) The “ Ferrar group ” (cited as fam. 18 or 13 &c.), extended by
later discovery from the four MSS. 183—69—124—846, edited
by Ferrar and Abbott, to twelve, all of which are probably
derived from a single lost uncial. Within this group 69, 124,
and 983 are specially important as often preserving readings not
found in other members.2 (c) The Paris MS. 28. (d) The

1 Codex 1 of the Gospels and its Allies, by K. Lake, Texts and Studies,
vol. vii. (Cambridge, 1902), contains the full text of 1 collated with its inferior
supporters 118—131—209, along with a very valuable Introduction. No
collation of 1582 has yet been published, but it is quoted by Soden (as e 183).
Soden also quotes from two others of much less importance, 7.e. for Mark, Luke,
John 2193 (Sod. ε 1131), for Mark only 872 (Sod. ε 203). Soden also includes
22 and 1278 in this family; the case of 22 is discussed by H. A. Sanders in “A
New Collation of Codex 22” (Journal of Biblical Studies, xxxiii., pt. 2) who in
general agrees. As nearly all the readings of 22 not found in 1—118—131—209
occur in other members of fam. 0, it matters little whether it is classed with
fam. 1 or as an independent member of the larger family.

2 A large literature has arisen round the Ferrar group (cf. Further
Researches into the History of the Ferrar Group, pp. 1-8, by J. Rendel Harris,
Cambridge Press, 1900). It would appear that most of the group 13—69—
124—230—346— 543788826828 98316891709 are descended from
a MS. which in the twelfth century was preserved either in some monastery
in Calabria in the “heel’’ of Italy, or in some allied monastery in Sicily.
In the classical period, S. Italy was not Italian but Greek; but by the
end of the sixth century, apart from a few coast towns, it had become
Latin. But in the eighth and following centuries there was an immense
immigration of Greek-speaking monks—refugees from the Mohammedan
invasions. In the twelfth century, under Norman rule, there was an intellectual
revival in the Greek monasteries of S. Italy. There is excellent evidence
(cf. K. Lake, J.7.S., Jan. 1904, p. 189 ff.) that MSS. were collected at con-

ox.1v KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA 8ιΙ

“Empress Theodora’s Codex ᾿ 565 (cited by Tischendorf as 2°°
and by Hort as 81).1_ For Mark this is the most, for the other
Gospels the least, important of the MSS. here mentioned.
(6) The very interesting British Museum MS. 700, acquired in
1882 but not fully made known to the world till 1890.?

Lake made the all-important discovery that © and these
notable cursives, taken all together, form in reality a single
family. True © and the five other sets of authorities mentioned
do not on the face of it exhibit a single type of text; but
that is because each of them has been heavily corrected to the
Byzantine standard, and in each case a dafferent set of correc-
tions has been made. If, however, we eliminate from the text
of all these manuscripts those variants which are found in the
Byzantine text, we find that the residuary readings of the six
different representatives of the family support one another to
a quite remarkable extent. Lake illustrates this by a table
analysing the variants in the first chapter of Mark.

In order to indicate the nature of his argument and at the
same time to test its validity in regard to Luke and John, I
have compiled similar tables (p. 83 and App. II.), only with
an additional column for the readings of fam. 1424. On the
left are printed the readings found in one or more MSS. of the
family which differ from the Textus Receptus; on the right are
the corresponding readings of the T.R. The letter f stands
wherever the MS. (or group) indicated at the head of the
column supports the family reading, the symbol $ when it
siderable expense from different parts of Greece and from Constantinople to
found, or refound, libraries. The magnificent purple Codex &, still preserved
at Rossano, must have been written either in Constantinople or in Cappadocia.
Accordingly, it is probable that the ancestor of the Ferrar group was brought
to Italy from the East; there is no reason for connecting it with the primitive
text of S. Italy, which in all probability was akin to D.

1 Edited by J. Belsheim, Christiania, 1885; corrections by H. 8. Cronin
in an Appendix to his edition of N, Texts and Studies, vol. iv. p. 106 ff.
Scrivener and Hoskier cite as 473.

2 Collation by H. C. Hoskier, as Codex 604 (Scrivener’s number); with

Appendix containing a collation of 1278, which Soden reckons a weak member
of fam. 1 (Ὁ. Nutt, 1890).

82 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

agrees with the T.R. If any MS. supports a third reading,
this is indicated in the column appropriate to that MS. by the
symbol “3.” The readings of 8 B and D are also given in
order to show how each of them alternately supports and
deserts the fam. © text.

From Lake’s table of variants in Mk. i. it appears that
there are 76 instances in which at least two members of the
family agree with one another in exhibiting readings not found
in the Byzantine text; while there are only 5 instances where
a member of the family gives a non-Byzantine reading other
than that supported by the family. The significance of these
figures is made clearer when it is noted that in regard to this
same set of 76 variants in Mk. i. & and B differ from one
another no less than 12 times. It follows that the ancestors
from which Θ᾽ and the five sets of allies were derived must
have differed from one another in this chapter considerably
less than x does from B. Clearly we are justified henceforth
in referring to this group of MSS. by the convenient title of
fam. ©

In the article in the Harvard Theological Review the authors
confined their discussion to the text of Mark—the Gospel in
which, as we have seen before, the key to the history of the
text of any particular MS. is usually to be found. But as I
happened to have been exercising myself with the problem
presented by the text of ©, I could not rest until I had explored
their solution a little further. The evidence that convinced
me that Lake’s conclusion holds good in regard to the other
Gospels also is presented in Appendix II.

In the course of this investigation I came upon evidence
that the family of which © is the head has numerous poor
relations. That is to say, there are a large number of MSS.
which appear to be ultimately descended from ancestors the

1 When a reading is cited as occurring in fam. 13 or the like, this does not
mean that it is found in all MSS. of that group, but that it occurs in at least
two, and that practically all MSS. of the group which do not give it follow the
Byzantine text instead.

GO ae

cx.1v KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA

“480 = "ἃ “0288 -- "Ἔ τς pue ‘wof {106 101} BuLIEeyIp = pig
“pig easy sioquieu euros = f *1aTYsOY 10 uleysjeg ul you 4nq “~pog= 1 *AyUO "Sg (049 10) OO I= αὶ
sakhat+ GGN .9 Ss Ss Ss a} S Ss sakha— %
(‘sq ‘d) ptavs via γ Ss 4} Ss τ 1 } (1atpusrdvu "8) Dinvt via aan
Tey ae 3 55 5 5 5 5 ES vov— ΤΑ as
~+ Gan Ss Ss s } S S Ss 432 —
ao + Nos 5 5 5 4} Ξ 5 am — α8
“gigndpu aoLap N } Ss Ss Ss J Ss J aoLnn maA0gi9nd vu 4,44
asyyarl a Ὁ 43 43 } } } } 49.979 as
(pig 4) 441m py 0] Ss Ss Ss Ss a} Ss τ -- aoimadvy oun εὐ
aoL+ aq 5s Ss 1 Ss Ss } Ss (avgnoy 8) ποι -- Τῇ awn
amma 39 w¥+ CGN .5 Ss any 5S Ss Ss Ss aona 33 ΤῸΝ —
(ρυϑρῶρ -d) "39.939. 648 : 9 - (pig) «} ΞΘ - (sorlq “8) αἰ! 39 939
sioran ΤΕῸΝ S Ss 5 5S J Ss Ss ian
stot dads 5 43 5 } 5 .} aS ST 9- OL
SoLamy not + i Ss τ & & } δ᾽ SoLam$ noL— aawx
ao+ GaN 5 } S Ss το .5 .5 (13 8) ao—
tyoaha 5 + * spun ΤΑΝ ty} (3) Ss Ss Ss κι aS wasLoruan * * * *y¥mAaha 60
ano + aq +} 5S: } =5 I 3 } (ugrdyaxn “4) ano— 89 as
swikgod- GQqnN 5 & ΝΕ Ss } Ss } (pyagmg ‘d) sroslgp+ 19
(am1 -e) γί } Ss Ly 5S } } j (aoan *d) aogyuun aan
w- qn Ss Ss ly (σον) } j Ss (amt “8) 94+ "ἢ a
Ano — ἘΠ = 5S <$ = } 8 } (ao1n01 “4) ano+ gg ta ue gn
5 40 SONIGVEY HET τω Γ OOL 999 8ζ «st wf το wot Θ ΑἼΠΑΥ ἢ HHL 10 ΒΘΝΙΑΥ͂ΒΣΙ

84 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

same or similar to those of fam. ®, but by lines of descent
which have suffered far more correction to the Byzantine
standard. For details I refer to Appendix II. Such MSS.
are of interest in that they occasionally preserve apparently
genuine readings of the family text which have been revised
out of the (generally speaking) better representatives. Of
these MSS. the most important is the group which von Soden
styles I*®, but which by parity of nomenclature I propose
to cite as fam. 1424, since the X°"* Kosinitza MS. 1424
(Scrivener’s ) is its oldest representative.

RELATION TO OTHER ANCIENT TEXTS

But before attempting to inquire further into the origin of
the text represented in fam. ©, we must clear up its relation to
other ancient texts, especially to those of B, D and the Old
Syriac. This is the more necessary as von Soden has mis-
represented and confused the evidence, by putting D into the
same sub-family as ©, and by making the Old Syriac another
witness to the same type of text.

My investigation of this question leads me to formulate
four main conclusions :

(1) So far as minor variants are concerned—and these are
much the most numerous, and are of course the most
significant for the study of the relationship of different texts
—the text of fam. Θ᾽ is almost equidistant from both the
Alexandrian and the Western texts. The balance inclines
slightly, but only slightly, to the Western side, while there are
a very large proportion of readings found neither in D nor in
the typical Alexandrian MSS. We have therefore in fam. Θ
a clearly defined and distinctive text which may properly be
ranked side by side with the three great texts, Alexandrian,
Western and Byzantine (=Hort’s “ Neutral,” ‘“ Western” and
“ Syrian ”) hitherto recognised.

(2) In fam, ® are found certain striking additions to the

on. τὖ KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA = 85

T.R. which the Syriac shares with D and the Old Lat., besides
others found only in the Syriac or the Armenian.

(3) On the other hand, as regards the longer omissions
from the T.R. which are so conspicuous a feature of the con-
junction of B with Syr. S., fam. © nearly always supports
the shorter text.

(4) Though the text of fam. Θ is nearer than any other
surviving Greek text to the Old Syriac, it is by no means its
exact equivalent; and it frequently goes with the Armenian
against the Syriac. Further, it would appear that it is sup-
ported most frequently of all by the oldest MSS. of the Georgian
version.

I proceed to summarise the evidence on which these con-
clusions are based. But the reader who has not previously
made a study of textual criticism is advised on a first reading
to skip this and pass on to the next subsection, “Θ and the
Text of Origen.”

(1) Lake’s. table shows that in Mk. i., in cases where B and D
differ, B supports fam. @ against D 16 times, while D supports
the family against B 15 times, also that in 9 cases fam. © is
supported against BD combined by one or more of the later
Alexandrian group x L A ¥ 33579. That is to say, the text
of fam. Θ, in this chapter of Mark, is somewhat more closely
allied to that of Alexandria than it is to D and the Old Latin.
But how far, we ask, is this proportion maintained throughout
the four Gospels? To make a count of all the readings in all
four Gospels is obviously impossible ; but in four different ways
I have been able to compile statistics which give some indica-
tion of the proportion which prevails elsewhere between the
number of Egyptian and D readings.

(a) Hoskier in his edition of 700 (p. ix) sets out all the agree-
ments of that MS. with the great uncials against the Byzantine
text. From these it appears that 700 is supported by B against
D 63 times, by one or more members of the group xLCA
against B D combined 34 times, while it joins D against B 111

86 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT |

times. (b) In the Introduction to Ferrar and Abbott’s historic
edition of 183—69—124—346 (p. xlviii) will be found an analysis
of the variants in Mt. xix.-xx. and Mk.i.-ix. Only those variants
are counted in which the four cursives agree against the T.R.
Out of 25 variants in Mt. xix.-xx., 13 &c. agree 18 times with
B, 17 with Ὁ. Out of 215 in Mk. i.-ix. they agree 88 times with
B, 90 with D. Further, it appears that in a series of selected
passages from all four Gospels fam. 13 differs 376 times from
x, 367 from B, 496 from D. That is to say, while 700 is slightly
nearer to D than to the Egyptian group, the Ferrar group is
distinctly nearer to By than to D. (c) The statistics given below
(p. 90), compiled from tke lists in Lake’s Codex 1 and its Allies,
show the numbers of agreements of fam.1 with the principal
authorities in turn, and show that fam. 1 is only a very little
nearer to B x than it is to the Old Lat.and Ὁ. (ἃ) For © there
are no such statistics to refer to, but a study of the MS. support
for variants in Mk. xiv. and xv. as set out in the Appendix of
Gregory and Beerman’s edition of Θ᾽ shows that for these two
chapters the proportion of Alexandrian to Western readings is
approximately as 3 to 4. All these several sets of statistics,
it will be observed, come to much the same thing. It so happens
that in fam. 1 and fam. 13 the Byzantine revisers have spared
a slightly larger proportion of Alexandrian than Western read-
ings, while in © and 700 the opposite has occurred; but,
considered as a whole, the text of fam. © is not very much
nearer to D than it is to B. Thus the von Soden grouping,
which puts D in the same group as ©, 28, 565, 700, while ex-
cluding from that group fam. 1 and fam. 18, is a complete mis-
apprehension of the evidence.

(2) More interesting, if not more important, is the relation of
fam. @ to the Syriac and the Armenian versions. This may be
illustrated by selecting a few striking readings in which fam. Θ
agrees with Syr. S., and usually Arm. also, against B.

Mt. i. 16. “laxaP δὲ ἐγέννησεν ᾿Ιωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας,
ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ᾿Ιησοῦς is the ordinary reading. Instead of this

cx.tv KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA 87

Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν ᾿Ιωσηφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαριὰμ
ἐγέννησεν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν is found in Θ and the
Ferrar MSS. 346—543—826—828 (hiat. 69), Old Lat. (incl. d.
hiat. D°*). Syr. C. agrees with this, approximately. The Armenian
combines both readings—a sure sign that it is a mixed text—
and reads “‘the husband of Mariam, to whom was betrothed
Mariam the virgin, from whom was born Jesus.” Syr. S. has a
reading which would correspond to ᾿Ιακὼβ Se ἐγέννησεν τὸν
Ἰωσήφ' Ἰωσὴφ ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν
Ἰησοῦν κτὰ. To me the reading of Syr. 8. looks as if it was
translated from a Greek MS. of the Θ 13 &c. type in
which by accident the name Ἰωσήφ had been written twice.
Dittography is a very common scribal error; and seeing that
every one of the preceding 39 names in the genealogy had
been written twice, the repetition of this particular word would
have been exceptionally easy. The reading of Syr. C. will then
be explained as one among many other attempts to correct
this MS. by a MS. of the D type.

Mt. xxvii. 16,17. The name of Barabbas is Jesus Barabbas,
Θ, 1 &c., Syr. S., Arm., Orig. in Mat.

Mt. xxviii. 18. After γῆς add καθὼς ἀπέστειλέν pe ὁ
πατήρ, κἀγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς @, 1604, Syr. Pesh. (hiant Syr.
S. and C.), Arm. (hiat. Orig.™*),

Mk. x. 14. Before εἶπεν add ἐπιτιμήσας Θ, 1 ὅτο., 13 &c.,
28, 565, Syr. 8., Arm.

Jn. xi. 39, om. ἡ ἀδελφὴ τοῦ τετελευκηκότος O, Syr. S. Arm.;
Old Lat.

Jn. xix. 13. For TaSSa0a=pavement καπῳῴαθᾶ =arch
1 &c., 565, Αττη. 94. Syr. S. and C. are both lacking; but
Syr. Pesh. does not favour either Γαβ βαθᾶ or the reading of
1&c. © has (χιφβαθα).

Jn. xx. 16. After διδάσκαλε add καὶ προσέδραμεν ἅψασθαι
αὐτοῦ Θ, 18 &c., ὅγε. 8.; Old Lat.

Note, however, that fam. © gives no support to the Syriac
in certain other conspicuous additions, e.g. in Lk. xxiii. 48, Jn.

88 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT, I

iii. 6, Jn. xi. 39, Jn. xii. 12. Further we note that the Armenian
also deserts the Syriac here.

(3) It would appear that fam. © agrees with Syr. 8. in a
number of notable omissions wherein Syr. S. has the support of B.

Mt. xvi. 2-3, “ Signs of the times,” om. 13 &c., Arm., Orig.™*.

Mt. xvii. 21, “This kind goeth not forth,” &c., om. ©,
1604 (Arm., Orig.™* habent) ; 6.

Mt. xviii. 11, “For the son of man came,” &c., om. Θ,
1 &c., 18 &., Orig. ™* (Arm. habet).

Mt. xxiii. 14, whole verse om. @, 1 &c., 28, Arm., Dae,
Ong. τ

Mk. ix. 44, 46, “ Where the worm dieth not” (1st and 2nd
time), om. 1, 28, 565, Arm.; k.

Mk. ix. 49, ‘“‘ And every sacrifice shall be salted with salt,”
om. 1, 565, 700, Arm. ; k.

Mk. xvi. 9-20. That this was originally absent from fam. Θ
may be inferred from the scholion to ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, Mk. xvi. 8,
in certain members of the family. In the newly discovered
Vatopedi MS. 1582—the oldest MS. of fam. 1—there is a con-
cluding ornamentation after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, Mk. xvi. 8, followed
by a scholion:! “In some copies the Gospel ends here, up to
which point also Eusebius Pamphili made his canons, but in
many (copies) there is also found this.” Then follows xvi. 9-16.
An identical scholion occurs in 1, in the margin ; but Dr. Blake
informs me that in 1582, which he has photographed, this note
is written right across the page in uncial letters as a colophon.
In 22 the word τέλος is written after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and the same
scholion, only with the allusion to Eusebius omitted, follows.
In three of the oldest Armenian MSS. the Gospel ends at this
point. So also does the oldest (Adysh) MS. of the Georgian
version.

Lk. ix. 55, “‘ Ye know not of what spirit ye are,” &c., om.
28, 1424 &c. (Arm. hab.).

Lk. xxii. 43-44. The angel and the Bloody Sweat, om. N

1 Cf. Gregory, Tezxtkritik, iii. p. 1160.

cx.tv KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA 89

1071. In fam. 13 it is omitted here but inserted after Mt.
xxvi. 39, where it occurs in Greek Lectionaries as a Good Friday
Lesson. This is explicable only if it was originally absent from
the text of the family in Luke, and was inserted in Matthew
by a scribe who supposed the Lectionary to represent the true
reading of that Gospel. Some MSS. of Arm. omit.

Lk. xxiii. 34, “ Father, forgive them,” om. © (Arm. hab.) ;
Dab.

Jn. vil. 53-vili. 11. Pericope Adulterae, om. ©, 22, 2193, 565,
1424 &., Arm.; a fq; in1 and 1582 at the end of the Gospel—with
a note that it is found in some copies but not commented upon
by the holy Fathers Chrysostom, Cyril Alex., and Theodore of
Mopsuestia ; inserted by 13 &c. after Lk. xxi. 38. It is absent
from all old Georgian MSS., having been introduced by George
the Athonite in his revision, c. 1045.

In view of this concurrence between B, Syr. 8. and fam. Θ,
in the omission of conspicuous passages, three points require
notice. (a) There is no evidence that fam. © omitted Lk. xxiii. 38,
“in Jetters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew,” with B, Syr. S.
and C. (Arm. hab.); or Jn. v. 4 (the moving of the waters) with
B, Syr. C. (hiat. Syr. S.), Arm.°°", Though, of course, the words
may have been inserted in all MSS. of the family by Byzantine
revisers. (b) Fam. © agrees with Syr. S. in certain conspicuous
insertions, which are found also in D. By reference to any
good Apparatus Criticus the student may verify this under the
references Mt. v. 22, Mt. x. 23, Mt. xxv. 1, Mk. x.24. (ὁ) Fam. ©
seems to support B against both Syr. ὃ. and D in omissions in
Mt. iv. 10, Mt. xx. 16, Lk. xx. 34.

(4) It is clear that the Greek text from which the Old Syriac
was translated is more closely related to that of fam. © than to
any other extant Greek MSS. ; but it would be a great mistake
to suppose that it is in any sense the same text. Indeed a
notable feature of the fam. © text is the number of its agree-
ments with B against the Syriac. It is also noteworthy that
the fam. © is frequently supported by the Armenian against

90 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

the Old Syriac. The lists of readings in Lake’s edition of
Codex 1 provide materials on which a rough estimate may be
based. From these lists I have compiled the following statistics:

Variants quoted in which fam. 1differsfrom T.R. . . . 520
Of these, number peculiar to fam.1 . . . . . . 68
452

Readings of fam. 1 found in Syr. 8. or C. but notin Arm.. . 57
+ bs δ Syr. 3. οὐ C. supported by Arm. . 46

103

᾿ς ᾿ ΝΣ Arm. but notin OldSyr. . . 49

ΩΝ + ἧς, D or Old Lat. but not ἴῃ δὶ, Bor L 85

re Ἧ 4 s or B but not in D or Old Lat.. 90

In considering these statistics it should be remembered that
many variants in the Greek cannot be represented in Syriac
or Armenian, and therefore the proportion of agreements with
these versions as contrasted with B, καὶ D or L, etc., is necessarily
understated. Nevertheless they show clearly (a) that fam. 1
(which previous statistics have shown is a typical representation
of fam. @) does not by any means stand to the Old Syriac in
the same relation as does D to the Old Latin. (8) That its
affinities with the Armenian are almost as numerous (95 as
against 103) as those with the Old Syriac.

When this chapter was already in slip proof Dr. R. P. Blake,
who is working on the text of the Georgian version, showed me
a collation of Mk. i. in the Adysh MS. (dated a.p. 897) and
in the recently discovered X°™* Chanmeti fragments, which
appear to represent an older form of that version than that
reproduced in the printed editions. The MSS. frequently differ
from one another; but the remarkable fact stands out that in
the majority of cases in which one or more of these Old Georgian

1 Of the Adysh Gospels there is a photographic facsimile by E. 5. Tagaishoibi

(Moscow, 1916). The two Chanmeti fragments are dated respectively a.p. 914
and 995; edited by V. N. Benedevié (Petropoli, 1908-9).

αη. τ᾿ KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA = 91

MSS. differs from the T.R., its reading is supported by fam. Θ.
In Mk. i. in the Georgian there are altogether 83 variants from
the T.R. Of these 28 are found nowhere else; and most of
them look as if they were due to a translator’s freedom. Of
the remaining 55, no less than 38 occur in one or more of the
seven main authorities from fam. @ ; and 5 others occur in MSS.
classed by von Soden as minor supporters of the I text.1 If, on
further investigation, it should appear that this close relation
between fam. © and the Georgian holds throughout all four
Gospels, the Old Georgian version will become an authority of
the first importance for the text of the Gospels; for it will
enable us to check and supplement the evidence of © and its
allies much as the Old Latin does for that of D.

Seeing that fam. © includes the main authorities for what
von Soden calls the “I text,” with the three all-important
exceptions of D, the Old Latin and the Old Syriac, it seemed
worth while to ask whether his theory that this text represents
a recension by Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, would hold
good, provided the authorities for it were restricted to fam Θ.
I, therefore, turned to his discussion (vol. i. p. 1494) of the
quotations of Eusebius of Caesarea, whom he regards as the
leading patristic authority for the I text. It appeared, however,
that, though a majority of the readings quoted from Eusebius
are to be found in fam. ©, a notable feature of the text of
Eusebius is the number of passages in which he gives a reading
found only in D. From this follows the important negative
conclusion—fam. © does not represent the text of Eusebius. The
facts, however, would be quite consistent with the hypothesis
that the text of Eusebius had much the same relation to that of
fam. © as x ΟἿ, 33 bear to B, 1.6. that the text of Eusebius
represents a somewhat degenerate form of the text found in

1 Old Georgian has the notable readings (p. 87) in Mt. xxvii. 16-17, xxviii.
18; Mk.x.14. Lacking photographs of the MSS. those in John were not checked.

92 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

fam. @—a degeneration largely due to mixture with a text of
the D type.

At this point there flashed across my mind the distinction
between the two texts used by Origen which was worked out as
long ago as 1811 by Griesbach in his Commentarius Criticus \—
a book to which my attention had been called by Prof.
C. H. Turner some months before. Griesbach’s thesis was that
Origen in his Commentary on John used an “ Alexandrian ”’
text of Mark for Mk. i.-xi., and a ‘‘ mixed text” for the
remainder of the Gospel, but that he used a ‘‘ Western” text
of Mark in his Commentary on Matthew and in his Ezhortation
to Martyrdom, both of which belong entirely to the period when
he lived in Caesarea. It occurred to me to review the evidence
submitted by Griesbach in the light of MSS. of the Gospels which
have only been discovered or properly edited since his time. The
results were astonishing.

Two points became clear. (a) The difference noticed by Gries-
bach between the use of an “ Alexandrian ” and of a “ mixed”
text of Mark corresponds to the change, not from the earlier to
the later chapters of Mark, but from the earlier to the later books
of the Commentary on John. (Ὁ) Both this “ mixed” text of
Mark and the so-called “ Western ” text used in the Commentary
on Matthew and in the Exhortation to Martyrdom are practically
identical with the text of fam.@. At once we notice the salient
fact that the change in the text used corresponds, roughly
speaking, to a change of residence. Origen himself tells us
that the first five books of the Commentary on John were written
before he left Alexandria for Caesarea, in 231. The Hxhortation
to Martyrdom was written shortly after the outbreak of the
persecution of 235; the Commentary on Matthew (about 240)
is probably one of the works taken down by shorthand from
lectures delivered on week-days in the church at Caesarea.

I proceed to submit statistics in support of the above con-
clusions.

1 Part 11. pp. x-xxxvi,

cx.tv KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA 98

(1) In books i.-x. of the Commentary on John, Origen quotes the
greater part of Mk. i. 1-27 and the whole of Mk. xi. 1-12, besides
a few odd verses. The number of variants in Mk. i. 1-27 cited
by Griesbach is 36. For 2 of these there is no support in MSS.
of the Gospels; but in one, and perhaps both, of these cases
Origen seems to be paraphrasing rather than quoting his text.
In the remaining 34 readings Origen is supported 31 times
by one or both of the MSS. B καὶ and once each by the other
Alexandrian MSS. C, L, A; but in only117 of the 34 is he supported
by fam. ®. From the shorter passages quoted in books i.-x.
(1.6. Mk. vi. 16; x.18; xi. 15-17; xii. 26-27; xiv. 60) Griesbach
cites 16 variants. Origen is supported in 10 of these by B,
and in 1 each by C, A; for 3 there is no MS. support, and 1 occurs
in the T.R. The continuous passage Mk. xi. 1-12 is specially
important, for it is so long that by no possibility can it be a
quotation from memory; it must therefore represent the third-
century MS. of the Gospel used by Origen. Apart from an
accidental omission (I think in some ancestor of our copy of
Origen on John) 2 the variants noted by Griesbach number 31 ;
in 29 of these the reading of Origen is supported by one or both
of the MSS. Bs; in 1 by fam. Θ, and in 1 by the T.R., where
these texts differ from Bx. It may be of interest to note that
in the passages examined. above, where B and » differ, Origen
has 6 agreements with B as against 7 with x.

(2) The number of variants in Mark cited by Griesbach from
the later books of the Commentary on John is 43. For 5 of these
the text of Origen has no MS. support ; in 6 cases it agrees with
the T.R. We have seen (p. 45 ff.) that when a quotation by an

1 Of these readings 16 occur in B or δὲ and the remaining 1 in D; so there
are none distinctive of fam. 0. N.B.—In two cases, where Griesbach, using the
Benedictine text, cites variants of Origen which differ from Β &, in Brooke’s
edition Origen’s reading agrees with those MSS.

2 In Mk. xi. 7-8 Origen omits καὶ ἐκάθισεν. . . ὅδον, but to make sense
adds the last four words after ἀγρῶν. Burkitt (J.7.S. xvii. p. 151) thinks
this was a defect in Origon’s MS. of the Gospel. As, however, there is a similar
omission (through homoioteleuton) in the quotation of Mt. xxi. 8 on the same
page in Brooke’s edition (i. p. 208), it seems to me more likely to be a defect in
the MS. of the Commentary on John, an ancestor of which was prone to omission.

94 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

ante-Nicene Father agrees with the T.R. against earlier texts,
there is always a possibility that this may be the result of later
scribal alteration in the MS. of that Father; again, whenever a
reading in a patristic quotation is not supported by a single MS.
of the Gospels, there is a presumption, either that the author is
quoting from memory or paraphrasing, or that it is an error in the
MSS. of his work. [ἢ view of these considerations it is highly
significant that of the remaining 32 variants no less than 30 are
found in fam. © (10 occurring only in the MSS. of this family),
while Origen is supported only once each by x and D, and never
by B, against the family.

(3) From Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, Griesbach cites
99 variants in Mark ; of these 8 are peculiar to Origen, and 13
occur in the Byzantine text.1 Of the remaining 78 as many as
74 are found in one or more members of fam. Θ᾿; while Origen
has one single agreement with each of the four MSS. B, C, A, D,
where these differ from fam. @.

(4) The figures in regard to the passages of Mark quoted in
the Exhortation to Martyrdom are, if anything, more striking.
Of the 15 variants instanced by Griesbach, 11 occur in fam. Θ ;
1 goes with the T.R. against fam. ©; 3 are unsupported by any
MS., but of these 1 is practically the reading of fam. ©, and the
other 2 spoil the sense and are obviously errors in the MS. (or
printer) of Origen. Figures like these amount to demonstration.
The text of Mark which Origen used at the time he wrote these
works was that of fam. ©.

The next step was to test the character of the text of Matthew

1 The suspicion that some, if not all, the 18 Byzantine variants do not
represent what Origen actually wrote, is partially justified by the fact that one
of them (Mk. xiv. 62) is quoted in Origen’s Commentary on John (bk. xviii.)
according to the reading of fam. 0. Of these 13 variants 2, though found in
the great majority of Byzantine MSS., do not occur in the printed T.R., which
has, besides some very late readings, a few derived from Codex 1. Since this
MS. was used by Erasmus, the T.R. occasionally supports fam. 0 against the
Byzantine text. For the purpose of the above calculations, the only MS.,
except those mentioned in the table on p. 83, which I have reckoned as evidence
for fam, Θ is 544,

cu.1v KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA 98

which was used by Origen. I recollected that books on textual
criticism commonly speak of the reading ‘“‘ Jesus Barabbas ”’ in
Mt. xxvii. 17 as found “in MSS. known to Origen,” as if this
characteristic reading of fam. © was one which, though known
to Origen, did not occur in the text he ordinarily used. But on
turning to the passage in the Commentary on Matthew I found
to my surprise that this reading occurs in the text recited and
commented on by Origen. It is the omission of the name Jesus
before Barabbas that should properly be described as a reading
“found in MSS. known to Origen.”’ Origen dislikes the reading
of the text he is using, and suggests that the name Jesus may be
an heretical interpolation ; but it is in his text. He informs his
readers that it is absent from MSS. known to him, but, pre-
sumably, not equally well known to them.

An investigation of several sections in this Commentary
(chosen for the exceptional length of the quotations they
included) revealed the facts set out in Appendix III. Briefly,
the majority of readings in Origen are found in one or more
members of fam. ©; but a minority are not. Further examina-
tion, however, showed that, where the text of Origen deserts
that of fam. ©, it is almost always in order to agree with the
Byzantine text. In Mt. xxii. and xxv., which were selected
for minute study, Origen’s quotations differ from the T.R. in
45 variants. In 37 of these his reading is supported by one
or more members of fam. ©. Clearly we must make a choice.
Either Origen used a text which in the main was that of fam. Θ,
but occasionally went over to the side of the Byzantine text,
or the Gospel quotations in the MSS. from which is derived
the printed text of Origen have been to a slight extent assimilated
to the Byzantine standard. This is obviously the more probable

1 The mystical interpretation, verum mysterium, of the contrast of the two
prisoners Christ and Barabbas which he proceeds to develop has much more
point if regarded as his way of making the best of a text which gave to both
the name Jesus; though the meaning is slightly obscured by the fact that
it is introduced by the word enim, which I cannot help thinking stands for
γοῦν, misread or misrendered as if it were γάρ.

90 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. I

alternative, and affords one more example of that assimilation
of biblical quotations to the standard text which is one of the
principal causes of corruption in the text of the Fathers (cf. p. 45 ff.).
That this assimilation has affected the MS. tradition of Origen’s
quotations from Matthew more than those from Mark is only
what we should expect; for precisely the same distinction is
found in the textual traditions of the Gospels themselves.

The evidence given above as to the assimilation to the
Byzantine text of the quotations of Origen in the Commentary
on Matthew compels us to discount the appearance in other
works of Origen of occasional readings of the Byzantine type.
In particular we can disregard the Byzantine readings which
occur here and there in the Gospel quotations in the Commentary
on John—more especially as that work depends upon a single
MS. of the tenth century. Bearing this in mind I proceeded
to test the quotations in the Commentary on John of Gospels
other than Mark, selecting for the purpose a number of the
longer, and therefore presumably more representative, passages.
The tests, though by no means exhaustive, all pointed in one
direction. Origen, so long as he was at work on the Commentary
on John, continued to use his Alexandrian MS. for John (and in
the main, I think, for Matthew); and where αὶ Β differ, Origen’s
MS. of John more often agreed with B than with x. But at
some point or other he seems to have changed his MS. of Luke, as
well as that of Mark, for one of the type of fam. ©. Incidentally,
we may infer that for some time after he reached Caesarea Origen
read the Gospels, not in a Four-Gospel Codex, but on separate rolls.

After reaching these results, it occurred to me to check them
by the discussion on “ the Bible-text of Origen ” by E. Preuschen
in the Berlin edition of the Commentary on John, 1903. Preuschen
shows conclusively that Origen frequently quotes from memory,
conflating, for example, the Matthean and Lukan versions of the
Parable of the Supper. From this it follows that we cannot
indiscriminately take all his quotations as evidence of the text
he used ; we must be careful to use only passages where it is

cx. tv KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA 9717

evident from the context that he is commenting on a MS.
open before him. But Preuschen goes on to argue that, even
where it is clear that Origen is using a written copy, the text
from which he quotes does not correspond at all closely with
that found in any extant family of MSS. To prove this point
Preuschen (p. xciv) selects three passages (all from tom. xix.), and
gives the variants with the MS. evidence for each. The central
column in the tables given below reproduces his statement
of the facts. The right-hand column is my own addition, and
gives the MS. evidence (much of which, of course, was not
available when he wrote) for the readings of fam. ©. It will
be seen at once that this fuller statement of the evidence points
to a conclusion very different from that which Preuschen draws.

SUPPORT QUOTED SUPPORT FROM
BY PREUSCHEN. Fam. Θ.

ORIGEN.

Mk. xii.
v. 41. καὶ ἑστὼς
(for καθίσας)

κατέναντι (T.R.)
(ἀπέναντι B 33 579)

1, 69, Syr. Sin., O, 1, 18, 28, 69, 565.
Hel™*:, Arm.

snADL al (1...) Θ0, 1, θ9, 124,
565.
κατενώπιον 18 ἄτα.
ἀπέναντι 1424 &c., U,
544.

καὶ πᾶς
(for πῶς)
ἔβαλλεν.
(for Ἠλλλεῦ
υ. 42. ἐλθοῦσα δὲ
(Rates ey)
v. 43. εἶπεν
(for λέγει)

692 13, 691 (ἔβαλε), 124.

D, Latt., Boh. Sah. | 0, 565, 700.

ByrADL, A, 33 0, 565, 700.
K U a. k. verss.

ἡ πτωχὴ αὕτη D, a, 6, ff, 9?, 2 0, 565, 700.

(order)

ἔβαλεν .
(for βέβληκεν)

* πῶς mis-spelt πᾶς : καὶ added to restore grammar.

BADL, Δ, 33 Θ, 565.

ORIGEN’S TEXT.

Lk. xxi.

OR EGS tooo Garb. -
(for εἶδε... εἰς)
ΤΙ.

v.1. eis τὸ γα"
φυλάκιον τὰ δῶρα
αὐτῶν πλουσίους
(order)

| v. 2. om. de '
om. καί before τινα.
(T.R. καί τινα)

om. ἐκεῖ

λεπτὰ δύο.

(order)

LUKE xxi. 1-4

SUPPORT AS QUOTED
BY PREUSCHEN.

THE FOUR GOSPELS PT.

SUPPORT FROM
Fam. 9.

Syr. Cur. 13 and 124 read εἶδε.
Was εἶδε a mar-
gina] note, cor-
recting the first
els to εἶδε, which
has been applied
to both occur-
rences of εἰς ?

BrDLxX 1, 69.

1, 33, 69.
6, Syr. Pesch.

5, a, Boh., Arm. 124.

BrLQ X, 88. 124.

KOMEN σ ἤν (Θ, 1, 700 τινὰ καὶ.)

Syr. Hel.**', Aeth.

D, Syr. Sin. Cur.
Pesch. Aeth.

Br QLX, 33.
Vulg. Syr. Sin.
Cur. Pesch. Boh.

2193 (of fam. 1).

νυ. 3. ἡ πτωχὴ αὕτη

AX,1, EGH al.

(T.R.) 0, 1, 565, 700. |

(T.R.) a, Syr. Hel.
(for αὕτη ἡ πτωχὴ
x BD, 13 &c.)
υ. 4. πάντες BrDA Ἢ
(for ἅπαντες)
τὰ δῶρα τοῦ θεοῦ | ADQ? EGH (T.R.) Θ, 18 ἄο., 700.

(1.8.
(om. τοῦ θεοῦ BN
1 &c.)

πάντα .
(for ἅπαντα)

al. Latt. verss.

BypDQLX

13 &c., 1071

cx.1v KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA 99

As displayed by Preuschen in the central column, the MS.
evidence appears amply to justify his conclusion that the text
of Origen does not correspond to any of the recognised families.
But the right-hand column tells a different tale. It shows
that, so far as these particular passages are concerned, the text
used by Origen has the closest resemblance to that of fam.
—though I suspect that the two readings in which Origen
and © both agree with the T.R. against a few members of
fam. © are not original, but the result of the text of both having
been conformed to the Byzantine standard. Now, if the above
passages had been selected by myself to substantiate the con-
clusion for which I have argued above, the remarkable coincidence
they exhibit between the text of Origen and fam. © would have
been impressive. But they are passages specially selected by
Preuschen in order to prove a thesis precisely opposite to mine,
viz. that Origen’s quotations correspond to no known form of
text. The fact, therefore, that they so exactly bear out my
own conclusion is, 1 venture to think, a strong confirmation
of the correctness of this conclusion.

The third passage which Preuschen selects is Jn. vii. 40-46.
In this he quotes five variants. In three of these the reading
of Origen is supported by BTL; in the fourth, by T. There
remains the substitution of the perfect γεγένηται for the aorist
ἐγένετο, a reading of Origen found in no extant MS. of the
Gospels. Seeing that the text of the Commentary on John
depends on a single copy of the tenth century, our confidence
that this last variant really stood in the passage as originally
quoted by Origen must be very small. Since of the four other
variants three are found in B T L and the fourth in the Graeco-
Sahidic MS. T—the text of which, so far as it survives, is even
nearer to B than x—the passage merely serves to corroborate
my own observation that the text of the Fourth Gospel used
by Origen throughout the Commentary was on the whole nearer
to B than to x.

I have not found leisure to test the scattered quotations

100 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

from Luke or John which occur here and there in the Commentary
on Matthew—a peculiarly delicate task, since most of them are
short passages likely to be quoted from memory. But I have
noted one passage where the context makes it clear that he is
quoting from a written text and is contrasting the readings of John
with the Synoptics. This occurs in his comment on Mt. xvi. 24
(tom. xii. 24). Origen here (Greek and Latin support one
another) quotes John with the addition of the words “and
they laid upon him the cross.” This addition is one of the
most remarkable of the Ferrar readings and is only found else-
where in Syr. Hier. This in itself is almost enough to prove
that, whether he always quoted from it or not, Origen at this
time certainly had access to a copy of John with the fam. Θ
text.

A further question must now be raised. Does fam. © repre-
sent a text which Origen found already in possession in A.D. 231
when he moved to Caesarea? Or is it a recension which he
himself made at a subsequent date? There can, I think, be no
reasonable doubt that fam. © represents the old text of Caesarea
and not a recension by Origen. The following are relevant
considerations.

(1) In his Commentary on Matthew (tom. xv. 14), Origen,
after deploring the number of variants between texts of the
Gospels, gives a brief account of the efforts that he had himself
made, θεοῦ διδόντος, towards the restoring the true text of
the LXX ; but adds that he had not dared to do the same thing
for the text of the New Testament. In exemplaribus autem
Novi Testamentt hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non
puta. This passage would be decisive evidence that, at the
time of writing the Commentary on Matthew, Origen had produced
no recension of the Gospels, but for the fact that the words
I have quoted from the old Latin version are not found in the
Greek. But the Greek MSS. of the Commentary on Matthew
ultimately all go back to a single much mutilated, and possibly
intentionally abbreviated, archetype ; also the clause in question,

ox.1v KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA 10]

read in its full context, seems essential to the point which
Origen is wishing to make. Hence it may be taken as reasonably
certain that an equivalent clause originally stood in the Greek.
In view, however, of the margin of uncertainty, further con-
siderations may be adduced in support of that conclusion.

(2) Eusebius devotes a large part of the sixth book of his
Ecclesiastical History to a description of the work of Origen ;
but, though he expatiates at length on Origen’s critical labours
on the text of the Greek Old Testament, he says nothing at all
about any such work on the New.

(3) Origen’s discussion of the reading Jesus Barabbas,
Mt. xxvil. 16, 17, makes it quite clear that he objected strongly
on theological grounds to the idea that the sacred name of
Jesus should be borne by a robber. He affirms that it was
absent from many MSS., and suggests that it was an heretical
interpolation in the text on which he is commenting. This
surely implies that it was in the text most familiar at Caesarea.
Indeed, as he was obviously lecturing with a copy of the Gospel
open before him, one would naturally suppose that it was the
copy ordinarily used for public worship in the church in which
his homiletical lectures were delivered. In a recension made
by himself the offending passage would have been omitted,
since he had excellent MS. authority for so doing.

(4) Jerome twice alludes to exemplaria Adamantw, that is,
“the copies of Origen’? (Adamantius was another name of
Origen). The allusion is obscure. Jerome, however, shows no
knowledge of any reading characteristic of fam. @;1 but he
frequently appeals to MSS. practically identical with x.
Reasons will be given (cf. App. IV.) for the view that if Jerome
associated any text with the name of Origen it was that of x.

We conclude that fam. © represents the text which Origen
found already established in the Church of Caesarea in 231.

1 This statement is based on a fairly thorough examination of the lists of
non-Byzantine readings, either expressly cited by Jerome or introduced by him
into the Vulgate, given in Wordsworth and White’s Vulgate, pp. 653-671.

102 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

This affords another fixed point for the history of the text of
the New Testament.

The text of the New Testament is a subject about which so
many theories have been spun that it may be well to recapitulate
the evidence that this particular conclusion is not a matter of
theory but rests on definitely ascertained fact. (a) © and the
group of allied MSS. contain between them an enormous number
of readings which deviate from the standard text ; in the great
majority of these deviations different members of this group sup-
port one another in the readings substituted for those of the
standard text. (b) The readings in which one or more of this
group of MSS. disagree with the Byzantine text are a definite
set, to be ascertained by purely objective observation ; it is
found that these residual readings correspond to the text of the
Gospels of Matthew and Mark used by Origen in his Commentary
on Matthew, and to the text of Mark and Luke used in the later
books of his Commentary on John. There is no room here for
subjective judgements, the facts either are, or are not, as I have
stated.

Tue MSS. sent To CONSTANTINE

Caesarea and its Library had a considerable reputation in
the Nicene and early post-Nicene period. Nevertheless, the
number of MSS. which show a larger or smaller admixture of
the Θ text is larger than we should have antecedently expected
if it represented merely the local text of Caesarea. Again, the
very different way in which the Caesarean and the Byzantine
texts are mixed in the different members or sub-families of
the © group suggests that these MSS. represent different mixtures
current in several different localities. This implies that the ©
text was at one time very widely circulated. Here, I believe,
von Soden is on the right track.

When Constantine rebuilt the old city of Byzantium, hoping
by magnificent buildings and imported works of art to make
it worthy to replace Rome as the capital of the Empire, from

EEE συ σσν

σπ. τν KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA 108

policy and conviction he showed himself specially lavish towards
the Church. About 331 he wrote to EKusebius—the corre-
spondence is still extant—desiring him to prepare at the Imperial
expense fifty copies of the Scriptures on vellum for the use of
that number of churches in the new city. von Soden suggested
that what he calls the “I text’ is descended from a recension
made by Eusebius and disseminated through these copies.
von Soden’s “1 text,” however, never existed, nor is there any
evidence that Eusebius undertook a recension of the Gospels.
But the natural thing for Eusebius to do would be to have the
copies asked for by Constantine made from the oldest copies
in the Library of Caesarea. The text of these would differ
very little from that of the MS. used by Origen a century earlier
in the same Church, and this MS., we have seen, had a text like
that preserved in fam. ©.

Some fifty years later, c. 380, Jerome was at Constantinople.
He found that the authorities there advocated the text of the
martyr Lucian—a text which, as we shall see later, was practi-
cally identical with what I have called the Byzantine text.
We can readily understand their preference of the Lucianic
recension ; it includes the longer conclusion of Mark and so
many other interesting passages omitted by the Caesarean text.
(Cf. the list, p. 88.) Assuming, then, that the authorities
at Constantinople had decided to adopt it, what would become
of the fifty copies given by Constantine? They were not
written on perishable papyrus, but on vellum; and the vellum
on which the two contemporary MSS. Bw were written is still
in excellent preservation after the lapse of nearly 1600 years.
They would not be destroyed, they would be corrected—some
copies more thoroughly than others, some in one place, some
in another. In the course of time the wealthier churches of the
city would desire clean new copies, undisfigured by constant
correction. They would get these from the best reputed copying
establishments, whether secular or monastic, in Constantinople.
Such establishments would have been careful to provide them-

104 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

selves with copies of the standard text; so the new copies
would represent the Lucianic text. What would become of the
old ones? Most probably they would be given away or sold
cheaply to smaller churches or monasteries in the provinces,
who could not afford to buy new and clean copies of the standard
text. Thus many of the fifty copies originally made for Con-
stantinople, more or less corrected to the standard text, would
get into the provinces. Some of them in all probability are
the ancestors of some of the mixed MSS. we now possess.

I venture the suggestion that one of these discarded MSS.
was used by St. Mesrop and St. Sahak to revise the Armenian
version. These two, we are told, translated the Scriptures
into Armenian about Α.Ὁ. 400; but subsequently, receiving
“correct” copies from Constantinople, proceeded to revise their
earlier work. Dean Armitage Robinson? argues that the
original translation was made from the Old Syriac. This has
been lately disputed by the French scholar Prof. F. Macler- -
a summary account and criticism of whose theories is given
by R. P. Blake in the Harvard Journal of Theology, July 1922.
Macler holds that the Armenian was derived directly from a
Greek text of the type which von Soden calls the “ I text,”’ most
nearly related to Θ, and lacking many of the characteristic readings
of D—a phrase which would serve as a description of fam. Θ.
The question is one which hinges largely on linguistic considera-
tions, a judgement on which demands a knowledge of both
Armenian and Syriac, which I unfortunately lack. But it
certainly fits in with statistics given on p. 90, which show
that the Armenian is frequently a supporter of fam. ©, not
only where fam. Θ and the Old Syriac agree, but almost as often
where they differ. The hypothesis that the Greek MS. used by
St. Mesrop to revise his first translation had the fam. © text
might, I think, explain the phenomena noted by Armitage

1 The peculiar mixture of texts in MSS. like 33 and 157 would be easily
explained on the hypothesis that they are descended from Alexandrian ancestors
sporadically corrected by MSS. of this mixed Lucianic-Caesarean type.

2 In “ Euthaliana,” Texts and Studies, iii. 3.

cx.1v KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA 10ὅ

Robinson, and also those brought forward by Macler. Its
verification, however, must await the publication of a text of
the Armenian version based on a critical study of the oldest
MSS. with complete apparatus, which, to the best of my knowledge,
does not yet exist. Meanwhile it would seem sufficiently plausible
to justify us in provisionally regarding the Armenian as a supple-
mentary witness for the text of fam. ©.

Besides this, in Palestine itself, there would necessarily be
in circulation many copies of the old text of Caesarea. These
also would suffer correction from the standard text; and these
half-corrected copies may be the ancestors of some surviving
members of the ® group. One such copy, very heavily revised,
was, I believe, used by the corrector of δὲ, known as x°, who
worked in the library of Caesarea (cf. App. II.). Again, since
Jerusalem, until the Council of Chalcedon, 451, was under the
jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Caesarea, it is possible that
Jerusalem used much the same text as Caesarea. It is at any
rate an interesting fact that in 565, at the end of Mark, there
is a colophon stating that it was copied from old MSS. from
Jerusalem. If Constantinople, Caesarea, and Jerusalem were all
centres of distribution, the evidence for a wide circulation of the
® text is readily accounted for.

But though there is an element of speculation in any theory
as to how this Caesarean text came to be propagated, there is
none, I submit, in the conclusion that in fam. @ this text is
preserved. Superficially the MSS. of this family differ greatly
from one another; but on examination it appears that this is
solely due to the different degree to which they have been
corrected to the Byzantine standard. Deduct the Byzantine
readings, and the differences between these MSS. in regard to
the residual text is very small. There are differences, but they
differ far less from one another than do x BL. From this
fact, and from the very close correspondence of this residual
text with the quotations of Origen, we are entitled to infer
that (however we may explain its preservation) the readings

106 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

of this family give the text read at Caesarea about 230 in an
extremely pure form.

It would be well worth while for some scholar to prepare
a continuous text of fam. @, after the model of Ferrar and
Abbott’s edition of 18 &c. It would then, I think, appear that
a practically continuous text of the Four Gospels of this type
has been preserved. And this text would rank alongside
B and D as the third primary authority for the text of the
Gospels.

ConcLupING SURVEY

If we look at the map we see at once that the Churches
whose early texts we have attempted to identify stand in a
circle round the Eastern Mediterranean—Alexandria, Caesarea,
Antioch, (Ephesus), Italy-Gaul, and Carthage. The remarkable
thing is that the texts we have examined form, as it were, a
graded series. Hach member of the series has many readings
peculiar to itself, but each is related to its next-door neighbour
far more closely than to remoter members of the series. Thus
B (Alexandria) has much in common with fam. © (Caesarea) ;
fam. ® shares many striking readings with Syr. S. (Antioch) ;
Syr. S. in turn has contacts with D ὃ a(Italy-Gaul) ; and, following
round the circle to the point from which we started, k (Carthage)
is in a sense a half-way house between D ba and B (Alexandria
again).

Antecedently we should rather expect the text of any
particular locality to be, up to a point, intermediate between
those of the localities geographically contiguous with it on
either side. But the exactness of correspondence between the
geographical propinquity and the resemblance of text exceeds
anything we should have anticipated. And this fact is, I feel,
of some weight in confirming the general thesis propounded in
these chapters.

There remains to draw a practical conclusion. In discussions
of variants in commentaries and elsewhere it is usual, in quoting

cx.1v KORIDETHI MS. AND TEXT OF CAESAREA 107

the MS. evidence for a particular reading, to cite first the
uncials which support it in alphabetical order, then cursives in
arithmetical order. This practice is fundamentally misleading.
von Soden’s method of quoting authorities in three great groups
(K HI) would have been a great improvement had he divided
his I group into three, corresponding to ©, D, Syr. S., and their
respective allies. What we want to know in any given case is
the reading (a) of Bs and their allies, (Ὁ) of D and its allies
W™*: Old Lat., (c) of the leading members of fam. Θ, (4) of the
Old Syriac, Armenian, and Old Georgian, and (e) of the T.R. In
subsequent chapters, therefore, I shall cite MSS. thus. Further,
it is not as a rule necessary to cite all the evidence of each group.
Thus, if a reading is supported by δὶ BL, nothing is gained by
adding CAY to the list; if it is supported by a, ὦ, 6, k, it is
superfluous to add further Old Latin evidence. Only where the
leading authorities of any of the great texts disagree with one
another is it, for ordinary purposes, important to cite their sub-
ordinate supporters. The method of citing all uncials, and that
in alphabetical order, disturbs the judgement and inevitably gives
an undue weight to mere numbers. The fallacy of numbers
is insisted on by Hort (ii. p. 48 ff.), as it is only through a chapter
of accidents, different in every case, that any MS. not representing
the standard text has survived. The first principle of scientific
criticism is that MSS. should be not counted but weighed.
And the weight of a MS. depends on the extent to which it
preserves, more or less, one of the ancient local texts.

P.S.—Since this chapter has been paged I have heard from
Dr. Blake that further examination of the old Georgian con-
firms our first impression (cf. p. 91) of the close relation between
the text of the version preserved in the Asyth MS. and that of
fam. ®.

[TABLE

‘002 494 “$9 ‘82 “Θ ΠΊΤΑ (1 ΒΘΡΠ]σαὶ ΑἸϑαΤρΈΘΙΒιαι pI ῬΟΩ .1 ‘pog τ Eel ‘wof= Ὅν eT ἐμ ῬΟΘ -- τ Ἴωρ[-- Ὃν ΤΠ Ν mA Ὁ ἃ ‘shvag perry
Ὅκλι) (ὦ) :(ὰ IDM “) ΓΗ ὃ « ἃ SOAS #980], ouruezkg “pf 8B uapog Aq pozto ‘Iq Surpnpour “ΠΟΙ. 85 = “OY Ῥῦντ
*60LT—689I—€86—828—928—88L— £9 9b —_083—F3I— 69 ET = ‘OW EL “S6TZ—ZS9T—8LZI—-y,,3L8—602—TEI—81I—32—1 = 08 I

481 sneeuerT | GZg (snIqasniy) Osh ΘΙΥ TAD
ogg ued 4) OLT BeNRE | OFZ '“αὙ ἀθὅμρ ΟΕ ᾿αὙ wed "5 σα

f(a) FOOT TLOT ἍΘΤΗ “14g X LST
bb ‘ff va ‘PH “14g TEL 268 -ne-x1-an6lG ᾿ Aupquawajddng

Ue1s1094) PIO (παν) sat τ πε 804
(0 10) ὦ τ Ὅρα & O-<-N such εν

ue? 42 ae 2 | WRG OR FOPL “ysog “1hg apr 68 Ὁ ‘op = havysay,

00L 495
2 eM 80. Ὅ ET “OR T "9 “48 ‘yoq ‘yea TN τ ‘op havpuooag

ae wd d Θ Ὁ dg 4 fnsoymp μοι

“HDVHLAV() “INV) GNV ATVI “VAAVSAV)S) “HOOILLNY “VIYANVXATY

(‘saysoyynn hippuocoes puv hapunsd asrsowau pynoys quapnys 91.)

SIXGL TVOOT HHL GNV ‘SSW AHL

108

THE REVISED VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY
SYNOPSIS

THE BEGINNINGS OF CRITICISM

Alexandria the birthplace of Textual Criticism in its application
to the Greek Classics. The Christian scholarship of Alexandria.
Origen’s Hexapla, an attempt to produce a critical text of the
Septuagint or Greek O.T.
The recensions of Lucian in Antioch and of Hesychius in Egypt.

Tur Revision By Lucian

Evidence that the Byzantine text is ultimately descended from
the recension of Lucian. Although, however, it originated in Antioch,
the capital of the Roman province of Syria, it is preferable to call
this text ‘‘ Byzantine ” (with Griesbach) rather than (with Hort)
“ Syrian.” It appears to be an eclectic revision based on earlier
texts, including, as well as the Alexandrian and Western texts, a text
akin to Syr. 8.

CHARACTER OF THE RECENSION

Probably Lucian attempted to produce a “catholic” text; it
is nearer to the Alexandrian than to other local texts. The nature
and origin of the “ Western” element accepted by Lucian. The
problem whether the Byzantine text has preserved readings of earlier
texts not otherwise known to us.

The earliest MS. with a text approximately that of Lucian is
vu" A; von Soden, however, thinks the purest form of this text
is to be found in 8 V (2, and next to them in the group EFGH. He
classes A with K II, which, he thinks, give Lucian’s text with an
appreciable admixture of readings of fam. 0. Safest to take S V 2 as
the typical MSS. of the Byzantine text without begging the question
as to whether A, Εἰ, or § nearest to Lucian.

109

110 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

THE Recension oF HeEsycutus

Bousset finds this in the Β καὶ text ; Hort (but tentatively) in that
of ΟἽ, Boh., ete.

There were two schools of textual criticism, one preferring the
“inclusive ”’ method followed by Lucian and the scribes (or editor)
of C L Ψ, etc., the other following the strict Alexandrian tradition,
which is comparable to Hort’s. B is the product of the latter school.

To which school did Hesychius belong? Significance of Jerome’s
strictures on his recension. Possibly connection of Β δὲ text with
Pierius.

In any case the Bx text goes back in essentials to the time of
Origen or earlier, and represents the oldest text of Alexandria.

pP— a στ δῶν»

CHAPTER V
THE REVISED VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY

Tue BEGINNINGS OF ORITICISM

Tue science of textual criticism was born in Alexandria when
Aristarchus (156 B.c.) made his famous effort to produce a
critical text of the poems of Homer. Subsequent scholars
followed his lead. Diligent search was made for the oldest
and most authentic texts with the support of the royal patrons.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, for example, begged of Athens the loan
of the official copies of the Greek Tragedians—and afterwards
refused to restore the originals. And till its ultimate destruction
it was the pride of the Library of Alexandria to possess and
reproduce the purest texts of the Greek classics. The name
Library disguises the fact that the institution in question corre-
sponded much more closely to what we mean by a University,
considered especially as a centre of specialist learning and
research. About a.D. 180 the Christian Pantaenus started
what is known as the Catechetical School, which, as Dr. Bigg
remarked, had very much the same relation to the Royal
Library as a denominational Theological College in Oxford or
Cambridge has to the University.

It is not, therefore, surprising to find Origen, the third head
of this School, very early in his career already at work on a
critical edition of the text of the Old Testament. This was
known as the Hezapla and was finished about 240, some years

after his retreat to Caesarea. The Hezapla presented in six
111

112 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

parallel columns the original Hebrew, a transliteration of it
into the Greek alphabet, and four rival Greek translations of it
then current. Eusebius (H.H. vi. 16) tells us of the diligent
search in out-of-the-way places made for the most ancient MSS.
of these versions. Fragments of the Hexapla survive, but the
work as a whole must have been so cumbrous that it is unlikely
it was ever copied except in certain books. But the column
containing the LXX version was published separately by
Eusebius and Pamphilus, and became the standard text of the
Greek Old Testament used in Palestine. This text appears to
be preserved in a relatively pure state in two MSS. of the
Pentateuch and two of the Prophets.1

Jerome tells us that the Churches of Antioch and Con-
stantinople preferred a text revised by the martyr Lucian,
while at Alexandria the text approved of was that of a certain
Hesychius.?

Lucian of Antioch died a martyr a.p. 312. The identity
of the Hesychius here mentioned is uncertain, but he is generally
supposed to be the Egyptian bishop of that name who
also, in 307, suffered martyrdom. In the passage just cited,
Jerome is speaking of the Old Testament. But in the open
letter to Damasus (cf. App. IV.), which stands as a preface to
the Gospels in the Vulgate, he makes it clear that the recensions
of Lucian and Hesychius included the New Testament as well.

Tue Revision By Lucian

It is practically certain that what I have spoken of as “ the
Byzantine text”? of the New Testament goes back to this
revision by Lucian of Antioch to which Jerome alludes. Or,

1 Cf. H. B. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 76 ff.

2 « Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem,
Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani Martyrii exemplaria probat,
mediae inter has provinciae Palestinae codices legunt, quos ab Origene
elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se
trifaria varietate compugnat.”’ From Jerome’s Preface to the Vulgate version
of Chronicles.

cx#.v ΤῊΝ REVISED VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY 118

to speak strictly, the Byzantine text, as it appears in the Textus
Receptus, has the same relation to the text of Lucian as the
ordinary printed editions of the Vulgate have to the text of
Jerome. It is the same text, but somewhat corrupted during
the Middle Ages, partly by the fresh errors of generations of
copyists and partly by an infiltration of readings from the older
text it superseded. The evidence for this conclusion may be
briefly summarised. It is stated in the Menologies—short
accounts of a Saint for reading on his day—that Lucian
bequeathed his pupils a copy of the Old and New Testaments
written in three columns in his own hand. A famous repre-
sentative of the school of Lucian is John Chrysostom, who wrote
at Antioch from 381 onwards. Towards the end of. his life he
was for a short time, over the turn of the century a.p. 400,
Patriarch of Constantinople. The quotations of the New Testa-
ment in his voluminous works are numerous; and they prove
that the text he used was substantially the Byzantine, apart
from its mediaeval corruptions. But the Byzantine text, we
shall see, when closely examined looks as if it was formed as the
result of a revision made on the principle of following alternately
or, if possible, combining Alexandrian, Western and Eastern
texts. Also, a text giving just these particular combinations
and alternations of readings is not found in the quota-
tions of any Father earlier than Chrysostom ; but after that
it becomes more and more common, beginning with writers
connected with either Antioch or Constantinople, until it
replaces all others. The conclusion, then, seems obvious
that the text of Chrysostom represents a revision made at or
near Antioch early in the fourth century, and speedily adopted
not only there but in Constantinople. And since Jerome, who
had himself studied in both these cities before 380, expressly
says that these Churches used the revised text of Lucian, it
would seem gratuitous scepticism to suppose that the apparently
revised text used by Chrysostom was other than that of Lucian.

But, if it be asked for, there is further evidence. Ulfilas

114 THE FOUR GOSPELS pT. I

who converted the Goths, translated the Gospels and parts of
the Old Testament into Gothic. As he died about 380, the
Gothic version must be earlier than that date. The Gothic is
the first of the early versions to show a predominantly Byzantine
text ; and in 341 Ulfilas, we know, was consecrated Bishop
at Antioch. It may be added that the great LXX scholars,
Field and Lagarde, starting from certain readings definitely
marked as Lucianic in the Syro-Hexapla, produced convincing
reasons for supposing that in some books certain MSS. of the Old
Testament give the text of Lucian.t The text of these MSS.
agrees with the Old Testament quotations of Chrysostom, and also
with such fragments of the Gothic version of the Old Testament
as survive. It is also remarkable that the Lucianic recension of
the Old Testament appears, like the Lucianic text of the New
Testament, to be a revision which aims at combining earlier texts.

The contention that the Byzantine text is an essentially
revised text—following sometimes one, sometimes another of
the earlier texts—made in or near Antioch about 300, was the
foundation - stone of Westcott and Hort’s theory of the
textual criticism of the New Testament. To appreciate its full
force, the student must read the relevant parts of Hort’s Intro-
duction. And nothing that has been discovered since appears
to me to have weakened their case, so far as the main issue is
concerned. Hort himself believed that this revision was most
probably the work of Lucian ; but, to avoid committing himself
on this point without further evidence, he gave this text the
name “Syrian” to indicate that it originated in the Greek-
speaking province of Syria of which Antioch was the capital.
The name was unfortunately chosen. It is very confusing to
the uninitiated, who naturally suppose it implies some special
connection with the ‘‘ Syriac” versions—which belong, as a
matter of fact, not to “Syria,” but to the Syriac-speaking
Church, whose centre was Edessa in Mesopotamia. Moreover,
the term “Syrian,” though applicable to the original recension

1H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 82 ff.

σαν THE REVISED VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY 11

of Lucian, is not appropriate to the standard text of the
Byzantine Empire if, as Hort himself thought, this is the
result of a later revision. Whether the Byzantine text of the
Ix". is identical with the text of Lucian or a slightly
revised form of it is a question not easy to answer. But,
paradoxical as it sounds, it is this IX°™ text that really
concerns us most; for it was by the Byzantine standard, not
by that of the actual text of Lucian—supposing these to be
different—that MSS. of mixed texts, which are of such importance
to the critic, have been corrected. It is, therefore, by deducting
actual Byzantine, not hypothetical Lucianic, readings that we
get back to the older element in their text. For these reasons
I have reverted to Griesbach’s nomenclature, and speak of
this text, not as “Syrian,” but as “ Byzantine.”

But there are some important respects in which Hort’s view
of the constituent elements in the Lucianic revision must be
modified in the light of subsequent discovery. As Burkitt
points out, in the Additional Notes contributed by him to the
second edition of Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testament (p. 330),
“a text like Syr. S. stands in places against δὶ BD united,
entering not infrequently as an independent constituent element
into the Antiochian (Syrian) text.” A notable instance is the
famous “On earth peace, goodwill towards men.” Here the
reading of Syr. 8. has passed into the Textus Receptus, against
the united testimony of x Β Ὁ Latt., which read “‘ peace among
men in whom he is well pleased.” So again the Byzantine
text reads ἄριστον, with Syr. 8. and C., Arm., against the ἄρτον
of s B D Latt. in Lk. xiv. 15.

Conflate readings, in which the Lucianic text puts side by
side a variant found in x B with the alternative given in D Lat.,
formed one of the most striking pieces of evidence adduced by
Hort to prove that the Lucianic text was a revision based on
texts of the other types. Hence a “ conflate reading,” in which
Syr. S. supplies one member and xB and D Lat. combined
provide the other, is striking evidence, not only of the independ-

116 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. I

ence of the Syr. S. type of text, but of the importance attached
to it by the revisers.

Of the instances quoted by Burkitt, Mk. i. 13 may be cited.
The Byzantine text reads ἐκεῖ ἐν τῷ ἐρήμῳ. One member
of this phrase, ἐκεῖ, is found in Syr. 8., supported in this instance
by some representatives of fam. @; the other member, ἐν τῷ
ἐρήμῳ, is in δὶ Β Latt. Another very pretty example is
noted by Prof. Lake.1 The Byzantine μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε μηδὲ
μελετᾶτε (Or προμελετᾶτε) (Mk. xiii. 11) is a conflation of μὴ
προμερἰμνᾶτε Β D Latt., etc., with μὴ προμελετᾶτε V 047 Syr. 8.
Another example is the reading of the T.R. in Lk. ii. 5, τῇ
μεμνηστευμένῃ αὐτοῦ γυναικί “his betrothed wife.” Here
ἐμνηστευμένῃ without γυναικί is read by 8B; but Syr. S.,
supported by a, ὦ, c, ff?, reads “ wife,’ omitting the word for
“ betrothed.” Curiously enough, D and e in this case support
B against the combined Latin and Syriac.

CHARACTER OF THE RECENSION

If the Lucianic revision originated in Antioch, the revisers
(we should expect) would start with a bias in favour of the
traditional text of that Church. Nevertheless, the Byzantine
text is fundamentally nearer to the Alexandrian than to the
“Western” type. There was an ancient rivalry between
Antioch and Alexandria, and antecedently we should not have
expected an Antiochian revision to start off, as it were, from the
Alexandrian text. Burkitt suggests that the fall of Paul of
Samosata, 270, may have had something to do with it. Certainly
this meant the triumph of the “catholic” as opposed to the
“nationalist” tendency in theology; and it is possible that
Lucian definitely set out to produce a “catholic” recension
of the Scriptures. That is, he may have sent for MSS. from
Alexandria, Ephesus, and, perhaps, even Rome, and endeavoured,
with the aid of these as well as the local text of Antioch, to

1 J.T.S., Jan. 1900, p. 291.

cx.v THE REVISED VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY 117

produce a text representing the combined traditions of the
Great Churches. Whether because of the special prestige
enjoyed by Alexandrian scholarship in regard to textual
criticism in general, or from the accident that of the MSS. he
used the Alexandrian happened to be the oldest, he seems to
have taken that text as the basis for his revision. Strange,
then, as it sounds, it really does look as if Lucian and his
fellow-revisers were in very much the same position as the
English and American revisers after another fifteen hundred
years. All desired to restore the true original text of the
Gospels, all desired to retain the traditional text of their own
Church, except in so far as the latest researches in textual
criticism made this impossible, and all accepted MSS. of the
Bx type as the best.

It would, however, seem a fair presumption that the majority
of readings in which the earliest form of the Lucianic text differs
from that of » BL is likely to represent a text traditional at
Antioch. This leads us to take a slightly different view of the
so-called ‘‘ Western” element in the Lucianic text. Most of the
“Western” readings adopted by Lucian might have been derived
from either Syr. 8. or D, since there is so much in common between
these two. But if, on other grounds, we regard Syr. 8S. as
descended from the old text of Antioch, then we should suppose
that Lucian did,.as a matter of fact, adopt these readings because
they occurred in the current text of Antioch, and did not go
abroad, as it were, to derive them from MSS. of the type of D.

What, then, are we to say of the readings in the Lucianic
text which occur in D but not in Syr. 8.? They may, as
suggested above, have been derived from MSS. brought from
Ephesus or Rome for‘the use of the revisers. But this hypo-
thesis is not absolutely necessary; for obviously the pheno-
menon cannot be considered apart from the occurrence in
Syr. C. of D readings not found in Syr. S. and of the occurrence
in the text of Eusebius of D readings not found in fam. ®. The
text of Syr. C., it is generally agreed, is later than that of Syr. S. ;

118 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

Eusebius is later than Origen, who in Eusebius’ own city seems
to have used the fam. Θ᾽ text; and Lucian of Antioch is later
than the translator of Syr. S., who may be presumed to have
used the old text of Antioch. In each case we have evidence
that the D element is later. We have already seen that the
later text of Alexandria suffered considerably through infiltra-
tion of Western readings. It would look as if the same thing
happened everywhere. Indeed, if Italy and Asia both used a
text of the D type, it would be inevitable that copies of the
Gospels brought by Christians from these provinces should
everywhere be a source of mixture. We conclude, then, that
the old text of Antioch had suffered a degeneration similar
to that we find in the later Alexandrian MSS., and that the
Antiochene MSS. used by Lucian had much the same relation
to the Greek text underlying Syr. 8. as C L 33 579 have to B.
That is, he used a form of the old text of Antioch corrupted
by stylistic amendment, assimilation of parallels, and an infiltra-
tion of readings from texts of both the D and the x B L type.

The importance of this point is largely indirect. It bears
on the question, whence did Lucian get the readings known to
us only from their occurrence in the Byzantine text. Most of
the readings of the Byzantine text, which do not also occur
in one or other of the earlier texts, are of the nature either of
minor stylistic improvements or of assimilation of the text of
one Gospel to a parallel passage in another. Very few look
original ; but Lucian must have found them somewhere.

Hort held that the Lucianic revision was based solely on
texts of the three types of early text which he distinguished
—the Neutral, represented by Bx; “the Alexandrian,” CL;
and the “ Western,” D Old Lat. He concluded that any
readings of the Lucianic text not to be found in our existing
authorities for these earlier texts were either very late or due
to the editorial efforts of the revisers. The discovery of Syr. 8.
has shown that some readings of the Lucianic text were older
than Hort supposed. But two incomplete MSS. of the Old

᾿
:
.

ον THE REVISED VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY 119

Syriac form but slender evidence for the old Greek text of
Antioch, and it is probable that some of the readings of the
Lucianic text which do not appear in the Syriac were derived
from the old text of Antioch. It is even possible that some
of the agreements with the Byzantine text found in Origen’s
Commentary on Matthew may be original. Most of these are
no doubt due to scribes and translators who have modified
what he actually wrote to conform with their own Biblical
text. But some may well be readings common to the texts of
Antioch and Caesarea. Unfortunately we cannot detect such
readings in © and its allies, supposing any occur there, simply
because we have no means of distinguishing them from the
admixture of Byzantine readings due to later revisers. Thus
we have really no means of identifying those readings of the
old text of Antioch, which survive in the Byzantine text, but
which do not happen to occur in the Old Syriac, except internal
probability. That criterion is, as a matter of fact, unfavourable
to most characteristically Byzantine readings; but there are
some few which I think are deserving of more serious considera-
tion than was accorded them by Hort. For the old Alexandrian
text we have MS. evidence not substantially inferior to that
possessed by Lucian, and we know how to use it better; but
for the various types of Eastern text Lucian must have had
MSS. of a greater variety and better quality than any we possess.
Hence, though the principles on which he made use of them
may have been the reverse of critical, to say offhand that he
has never preserved an ancient reading for which we have no
other authority seems over-bold.

The fifth-century Codex A is the earliest Greek MS. giving
a text which is approximately that of Lucian, though it seems
to have a small proportion of readings belonging to earlier texts
The name Alexandrinus which it bears (it was given to Charles I.
by a Patriarch of Alexandria) is thus another pitfall for the
innocent student, who naturally supposes that the text it re-
presents is Alexandrian; and, curiously enough, outside the

120 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

Gospels its text is Alexandrian ; for the rest of the New Testa-
ment A is a most constant ally of Bx.1

In von Soden’s opinion, the purest form of Lucian’s text is
to be found in the group S V Q, which he calls the K! text. In
this judgement he may be right; but it is safer to regard this
text as that received at Constantinople in the VI", and
thus as the purest type of the “ Byzantine” text. The group
EFGH he regards as the K! text, with a small infusion of
“Ferrar”’ readings. Another group, headed by K II, preserves,
he thinks, the text used by Chrysostom in his Homilies on John
and has a small mixture of “I” readings; he regards A as a
member of this group with a few intrusive readings.

But once it is conceded that Lucian’s revision was based
on the eclectic principle of choosing, now an Alexandrian, now
a “ Western” reading, it ceases to be of any great importance
to know, in the case of any particular reading, whether as a
matter of fact it is the one which Lucian happened to prefer.
All that really matters is the broad fact that the Byzantine text
is ultimately descended from his revision. Whether the oldest
form of it is to be found in A or E or S§ is a comparatively small
matter. The difference between the text of A and that of most

1 The evidence for the ordinary view that it was written in Alexandria
has been seriously shaken by Burkitt (J.7.S., 1910, pp. 603 ff.), who suggests
that it came, via Mt. Athos, from Constantinople. Personally, I should
rather assign it to some place like Caesarea or Berytus (Beyrout) half-way be-
tween Antioch and Alexandria—for three reasons. (1) It contains, immediately
after the New Testament, the two Epistles of Clement. An attempt to assign
to these canonical or quasi-canonical authority is made in the Apostolic Con-
stitutions, a late fourth-century work which undoubtedly emanated from
that part of the world. (2) The combination of an Antiochian text of the
Gospels with an Alexandrian text of the Acts and Epistles suggests some place
where the influence of Antioch and of Alexandria met. (3) Its text of the Old
Testament appears to be a non-Alexandrian text heavily revised by the
Hexapla which we know was the dominant text of Palestine. The quotations
of the LXX in New Testament writers and Josephus more often than not
agree with A against B, which MS. seems to represent a pre-Origenic Alexan-
drian text (H. B. Swete, op. cit. p. 395). But the Gentile mission started from
Antioch, not Alexandria ; and the New Testament writers and Josephus wrote
in Antioch, Asia Minor, or Rome; and would be likely to have used the
Antiochian rather than the Alexandrian recension of the Jewish Bible.

cx.v THE REVISED VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY 121]

of the uncials in the long list headed by E and ending with S V
(Q was unknown to Tischendorf, and von Soden does not give its
readings 1) in an ordinary Apparatus Criticus is really very small.
In fact, the group A ES would be found supporting one another
far more often than the leading members of the Egyptian group
x BL. The one really important reading which was certainly
absent from the text of Lucian, although it is found, sometimes
with, sometimes without, asterisks or obeli, in a majority of the
Byzantine MSS., is the Pericope Adulterae (Jn. vii. 53-vil. 11).

THE RECENSION OF HESYCHIUS

Is it possible to identify that recension of Hesychius which
Jerome tells us was preferred in Alexandria in his day? Hort,
very tentatively, suggested that it is to be found in what he
called the “‘ Alexandrian” text, 1.6. in that later form of the
B text whose characteristic readings appear most abundantly
in CL and in the Bohairic version. Bousset, in his Textkritische
Studien, argued that B represents this recension. In that case,
since B was probably written in Alexandria within twenty years
or so of the death of Hesychius and was copied by an exception-
ally careful scribe, it will represent an almost exact transcript
of what Hesychius wrote. On the other hand, the early date of
B makes it equally possible that it was produced, before the
Hesychian revision had had time to become the standard text of
Alexandria, by some scholar who dissented from his critical
methods.

It is not sufficiently realised that the difference of tempera-
ment and method which divided Hort and Scrivener in the
nineteenth century, existed also in the fourth. Eusebius, in
whose lifetime B, and possibly x also, were written, virtually
formulates two contrary principles, upon either of which an

1 Von Soden assigns 2 to VIIIeent., but Dr. Blake (having photographed the
original on Mt. Athos) tells me he feels certain it is late [Xcemt or Xcent. If
so, no MS. earlier than IXcet- gives the K! text; but von Soden holds that it is
found in the VIcent- Purple MSS. (apart from their I mixture).

122 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

acceptable text of the Gospels could be framed. In various
passages where he writes as a textual scholar, he says that the
last twelve verses of Mark are absent from “almost all” or
from “‘ the more accurate ” copies. But in his letter to Marinus,
after discussing the possibility of rejecting this passage altogether,
he proceeds, “ While another, not daring to reject anything
whatever that is in any way current in the Scripture of the
Gospels, will say that the reading is double, as in many other
cases, and that each reading must be received; on the ground
that this reading finds no more acceptance than that, nor that
than this, with faithful and discreet persons.” Now this
“inclusive”? principle, that no reading can safely be rejected
which has behind it a considerable weight of authority, is
precisely that upon which the Lucianic revision was based.?

But the tradition of Alexandrian scholarship in regard to
the text of Homer and the Greek classics was in favour of the
opposite principle, that, namely, of basing a text on the oldest
MS. The Ptolemies, we have seen, made great efforts to procure
the oldest possible copies, and the emphasis laid by Eusebius
on the efforts of Origen to do the same for the Greek Old
Testament, shows that Christian scholarship inherited this
tradition. A typical Alexandrian editor would have diligently
sought out the oldest copy attainable and followed that. And,
if it omitted passages found in later MSS., he would have regarded
these as interpolations. Hort speaks of ‘ the almost universal
tendency of transcribers to make their text as full as possible,
and to eschew omissions” ;* and infers that copyists would
tend to prefer an interpolated to an uninterpolated text. This

1 Quoted by Westcott and Hort, vol. ii. Appendix, p. 31.

3 But Lucian also had a critic’s conscience and the “ inclusiveness ” of
his method may easily be exaggerated. He omits, for example, two notable
interpolations in Matthew. The section “Seek ye to rise,’”’ etc., Mt. xx. 28,
found in Ὁ Φ Syr. C. Hels Old Lat., is shown by the MS. evidence to have
been widely current, both in East and West. He also omits the spear-thrust,
Mt. xxvii. 49, found in §¥BCLUT, ete.; but a reading so supported and
also known to Chrysostom can hardly have been unknown to Lucian.

3 W.H. ii. p. 175.

ox.v THE REVISED VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY 128

may be true of some of the local texts of the second century ;
it is the very opposite of the truth where scribes or editors
trained in the tradition of Alexandrian textual criticism are
concerned. The Alexandrian editors of Homer were as eagle-
eyed to detect and obelise “interpolations” in Homer as a
modern critic. That they actually excised such passages with-
out MS. authority is improbable, for most of the passages they
suspect are found in existing MSS. On the other hand, many
lines occur in papyri and in quotations of Homer by earlier
writers, like Plato, which are not in our MSS. ; so it would seem
as if, wherever there was MS. authority for omission, they
inclined to prefer the shorter reading.

That Christian scholars and scribes were capable of the
same critical attitude we have irrefragable evidence. The
obelus, invented by Aristarchus to mark suspected passages in
Homer, is frequent in MSS. of the Gospel to mark just those
sections, like the Pericope in John, which modern editors reject.
The first corrector of x, probably the contemporary διορθωτής,
was at pains to enclose in brackets and mark with dots for
deletion two famous passages in Luke written by the original
scribe which, being absent from B W 579 and the Egyptian
versions, we infer were not accepted in the text at that time
dominant in Alexandria, viz. the incident of the “ Bloody
Sweat” in Gethsemane (Lk. xxi. 43 f.) and the saying “‘ Father
forgive them” (Lk. xxii. 34). This is conclusive evidence, either
that the passages in question were disliked on dogmatic grounds,
or that the Christian scholars of Alexandria were as much alert
as Hort to rid the text of interpolations. In either case the
notion is completely refuted that the regular tendency of scribes
was to choose the longer reading, and that therefore the modern
editor is quite safe so long as he steadily rejects. And that
there were Christian scholars outside Egypt who adopted the
Alexandrian principle we have abundant evidence. Take two
of the critical notes in 565. The words “ Blessed art thou among
women” are omitted in the text (cf. Lk. i.); they are added

124 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

in the margin with the note “ not found in the ancient copies ”
οὐ κεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις. Similarly in John there is the even
more remarkable note .. . ws ἐν τοῖς νῦν ἀντιγράφοις μὴ
κείμενον παρέλειψα, “ (The section about the Adulteress) . . .
I have omitted as not read in the copies now current.” Thus
two passages, both in themselves attractive and dogmatically
unobjectionable, are rejected, the one because it was omitted
by the ancient, and the other by the modern, copies. Surely
we have evidence of a resolution to purify the text from all
possible interpolation equal to that of Hort, who omitted one
set of passages because absent from the pure “ Neutral” text,
and another set because absent from the “ aberrant ” ““ Western”
text. In codices 1 and 1582 the note on the Pericope points
out that it is not mentioned in the Commentaries of Chrysostom,
Cyril, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. 1582, besides having the
foregoing note on the Pericope, also, as we have seen, gives
Mk. xvi. 9-20 as a sort of Appendix; but in the margin it has
at v. 19 the note, “Irenaeus, who was near to the apostles
(ὁ τῶν ἀποστόλων πλησίον), in the third book against heresies
quotes this saying as found in Mark.” This is criticism of a
high scientific order.

Now, whoever was responsible for it, the B text has been
edited on the Alexandrian principle. Indeed the difference
between B and the Lucianic recension would be comparable
to that between the text of the Revised Version and the text
of Westcott and Hort. The Revisers definitely reject no reading
for which there is respectable authority, W.H. follow the oldest
MS. and suspect interpolation even in that. Now, Hesychius
may have gone on this principle. His recension may, like
Jerome’s Vulgate, have been made at the invitation of the
Patriarch. And if the Patriarch deemed an official revision
desirable, diligent search would be made throughout Egypt for
the oldest copies. The climate of Egypt is exceptionally
favourable for the preservation of papyri, as the discovery in
a jar the other day of a copy of the Coptic version of the Gospel

cx.v THE REVISED VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY 125

of John 1500 years old reminds us. It would be remarkable
if Hesychius could not procure copies well over a century old.
Certainly, whoever edited it, the text of B looks as if it had been
based on copies old enough to have escaped serious corruption ;
and there is no conceivable reason why copies may, not have
been used as old as the middle of the second century.

If B represents the recension of Hesychius—as, on the whole,
I am inclined to believe—then the later Alexandrian text
CLA VY 88, 579 must bear the same relation to it as the later
Byzantine text does to Lucian’s revision, or the mediaeval
Vulgate to Jerome’s authentic text—that is, it must represent
the inevitable degeneration which frequent copying entails, along
with a certain amount of re-infiltration into the revised text of
readings from older unrevised texts.

But there is another possibility. Hesychius may have had
more concern for the practical needs of the plain man than for
the demands of strict scholarship. Like Lucian he may have
preferred a text which included such ‘“ Western” readings as
were well known and long established, in which harsh grammar
and inelegancies of style had been emended, and in which
Mark’s Gospel did not break off short in the middle of a sentence
but had a reasonable ending. Now this is precisely the kind
of text which we find in C L Y 33, 579 and the Bohairic version,
which Hort describes as a “ partially degenerate form of the
B text.” Three of these, L Ψ 579, besides some fragments
which belong to the same family, have the Shorter Conclusion
of Mark. Some of the “ Alexandrian” grammatical improve-
ments can be traced back as far as Clement and Origen; the
Shorter Conclusion of Mark occurs in the third century Sahidic.!
Thus there is no convincing reason for dating the “‘ Alexandrian”
text later than Hesychius.

The main objection to identifying B with the Hesychian
recension is Jerome’s emphatic denunciation of the text of

1 As the Shorter Conclusion occurs in the African Latin ἐν, it may be part
of the “ Western ” mixture in the Sahidic.

126 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

Hesychius, along with that of Lucian, as an interpolated and
corrupt revision. His attack on the Lucianic text is not difficult
to explain ; after all, what Jerome says about the Lucianic text is
practically what Hort, judging by the Bx standard, said of it
fifteen hundred years later. But if B represents the Hesychian
text, it is hard to see how Jerome can speak of it as “ inter-
polated.” For the reasons given in Appendix IV.—where his
words are quoted in the original—I am personally not disposed
to attach much weight to his statement.

On the other hand, if LY 579 represent the text of
Hesychius, another explanation is possible. Jerome had studied
in Antioch and Constantinople and must have been familiar with
the Lucianic text, but at the date when he wrote the Preface
to the Vulgate Gospels he had not yet been to Alexandria.
Hence his knowledge of the MHesychian text may have
been at second-hand, and may have been derived from some
Alexandrian scholar of the school of Origen who, like Hort,
regarded the “ Alexandrian ” corrections of L VY 579 as corruptions
and the Shorter Conclusion of Mark as an interpolation, and had
expressed his views with vigour. Now there was a certain
Pierius, known as “the younger Origen,” a disciple of Origen
and head of the Catechetical School c. 265; from Jerome’s
notice of him (De wr. illustr. 76) he would seem to have survived
by some years the persecution in which Hesychius was martyred,
and to have lived the last part of his life at Rome. We
know that Jerome had read and admired some of his writings,
and he once appeals to the authority of “ the MSS. of Origen and
Pierius.”! Is it possible that Jerome derived fromsomestatement
of Pierius the unfavourable verdict which he expresses on the
text of Hesychius? In that case the Bx text represents the
text of the Catechetical School which prided itself on keeping
alive the traditions of Origen.?

1 Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew, ad ch. xxiv.

* Burkitt, J.7.8., Jan. 1916, p. 149, suggests that Origen himself may have
discovered some old MS. which escaped corruptions which were already wide-
spread, and so was responsible for the revival of a purer text.

ον THE REVISED VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY 127

The question, however, whether we owe the Bx text to the
action of Hesychius, Pierius, or some unknown scholar, is quite
of minor importance. The essential point is that these MSS.
appear to represent, more nearly than any others, the text used
by Origen before a.p. 230; and Origen, especially when engaged
on such an important work as his Commentary on John, would
certainly have used the oldest text he could procure. We may,
then, affirm with confidence that any reading of B which is
supported by y, L, or any other MS. of the Egyptian family
almost certainly belongs to that text in its earliest form.

INTERPOLATION AND ASSIMILATION

SYNOPSIS

THE FALLACY OF THE SHORTER TEXT

Prof.Clark’s criticism of the maxim brevior lectio potior; in classical
authors accidental omission is more common than interpolation,
hence the presumption is in favour of the genuineness of the longer
reading. This principle cannot be applied without reservation to
the text of the Gospel. But it has an important bearing on the
general discredit attached to the Western text, as interpolated and as
at times paraphrasing the true text.

The number of omissions in δὲ through homoioteleuton illustrates
the possibility of accidental omissions having occurred in the earliest
copy which reached Alexandria. The very conscientiousness of
Alexandrian scribes would prevent the restoration at a later date
of the omitted passages.

Some NotaBLeE READINGS

Accidental omission would be soon repaired in the place where a
book was originally published, more slowly elsewhere; but an in-
sertion found in a local text remote from the place of writing may
be suspected as an interpolation. Consideration of some famous
readings in the light of this principle.

‘* Neither the Son,” Mt. xxiv. 36; Jesus Barabbas, Mt. xxvii. 17;
the spear thrust, Mt. xxvu. 49; “Seek to rise,” etc., Mt. xx. 28;
“ The Light at the Baptism,” Mt. ii. 16; “‘ The Bloody Sweat,” Lk.
xxi. 43 f.; “ Father, forgive them,” Lk. xxiv. 34.

ASSIMILATION OF PARALLELS

The tendency of scribes to make small verbal alterations in the
direction of bringing passages where the Gospels already resemble
one another into a still closer resemblance. This assimilation of

129 K

180 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

parallels the main cause of textual corruption and has affected all
lines of transmission. The B text has suffered less in this way than
any other but is by no means immune.

“Western non-interpolations,” the name given by Hort to some
nine conspicuous readings, found in B, but absent from D or the
Old Lat. He regarded these as harmonistic interpolations ; but he
unduly isolated these nine from a large number of additions in the
B text which, though less striking, are much more obviously due to
assimilation to parallel passages.

Nevertheless it is fallacious to suppose that every omission by
the Western text is right ; thus the omission of the words “ He was
taken up into heaven,” Lk. xxiv. 51, is quite possibly an attempt to
harmonise the Gospel with the Acts, and not wee versa.

The Voice at the Baptism, Lk. 11. 22, is another case where the
Western text is probably original. B and its allies (here followed
by T.R.) assimilate the text in Luke to the parallel version in Mark
and Matthew. In the main, however, the Western text has suffered
most, and the Alexandrian least, from assimilation.

CoNCLUSION

A notable set of variants illustrating three principles: (1) the
operation of assimilation on different lines of text tradition; (2)
the ‘‘ conflate’ character of the Byzantine text; (3) the relative
immunity of texts of Mark from later revision.

Although we may think that Hort relied too exclusively upon
the B text, and that an “eclectic” text following now one, now
another, of the old local texts is theoretically a sounder basis, it in
no way follows either (a) that we return to Lucian’s text, much less
to its degenerate descendant the T.R., or (b) that we deny the
Alexandrian text, preserved in Β κα, to be the best of the local texts,
and therefore the one which, in the main, a critical modern editor
must follow.

For most practical purposes Westcott and Hort’s edition is
satisfactory ; but there is a real need for a new thesaurus of variants
to take the place of Tischendorf’s great edition.

In conclusion, the delimitation of local texts shows that our
evidence for the substantial integrity of the text of the Gospels as
a whole rests on a wide and multiple basis. When, however, fine
points of scholarship or the niceties of evidence bearing on the
Synoptic problem are at issue, we may have at times to go behind
the text found in the best modern printed editions of Greek
Testament.

CHAPTER VI
INTERPOLATION AND ASSIMILATION

THe Fanuacy oF THE SHORTER TEXT

ΤῊΕΒ whole question of interpolations in ancient MSS. has been
set in an entirely new light by the researches of Mr. A. C. Clark,
Corpus Professor of Latin at Oxford, quem honoris causa nomino.
In The Descent of Manuscripts, an investigation of the manu-
script tradition of the Greek and Latin Classics, he proves
conclusively that the error to which scribes were most prone
was not interpolation but accidental omission. It is not too
much to say that this conclusion entails a revolution in accepted
critical methods. Hitherto the maxim brevior lectio potir,
that is, that the shorter reading of two readings is probably
the original, has been assumed as a postulate of scientific criticism.
Clark has shown that, so far as classical texts are concerned,
the facts point entirely the other way. “A text,” as he puts it,
“is like a traveller who loses a portion of his luggage every
time he changes trains.” Once this is stated, its truth is self-
evident ; any one who has ever sent his own MS. to a typist
knows that the accidental omission of words, lines, or sentences
is a constant occurrence, while interpolation is not. Of course
marginal notes, various readings, etc., do constantly creep into
the text of ancient MSS. But while intentional interpolation
is quite exceptional, omission—commonly accidental, but some-
times, it would seem, intentional—is a constant phenomenon,

1 Oxford, 1918.
131

132 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

In a smaller work,! Clark applies to the Gospels and Acts
the principles which he had worked out in the sphere of classical
studies. So far as the Acts are concerned, he goes a long way
towards proving his case. But, if I may take it upon me to
pronounce upon the work of so eminent an authority, I would
say that he underestimates the difference between the textual
traditions of the Gospels and of classical literature in two
important respects. First, it so happens that the omission of
passages found in other texts is specially characteristic of B, and
next to B of x, fam. ©, Syr.S., and &, 1.6. of the authorities which
in other respects preserve good and ancient texts. Secondly, the
antecedent probability that some traditions as to the sayings
or deeds of Christ, not included in any of the Gospels, would
have been in circulation in the early Church is high; and it
would be very natural to record them in the margin of a Gospel,
from whence they might easily slip into the text. For these
two reasons the principle that “‘ the longer text is probably the
more original’ cannot be applied without considerable reserva-
tion to the particular case of the Four Gospels.

This principle, however, has an indirect bearing on the
“bad name” given to “ Western” readings as such. It was not
merely on account of its alleged abundance of interpolation
that a general discredit was attached by Hort to the “‘ Western ”’
text. It was even more on account of a supposed tendency
to “ paraphrase.” The text of Bx, being held innocent of this
free treatment of the original, acquired the credit which always
attaches to a respectable witness as against one known to be
in some respects disreputable? But to speak of a passage in
one MS. as being a “ paraphrase” of the text found in another

1 The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts, Oxford, 1914. The main
argument of this book is very conveniently summarised and in some ways
strengthened in an article in J.7'.S., Jan. 1915.

3. So far was this preference carried that, even in cases where the
“* Western ” reading, on the face of it, appears more probable, Hort rejects it.
Perhaps the clearest. example is the preference of the reading 'Ἑλληνιστὰς
which makes nonsense, to”E\Anvas Acts xi. 20.

CH. VI INTERPOLATION AND ASSIMILATION 133

implies that we know already the answer to the prior question,
which of the two represents the original. In the case of the B
and D texts this was supposed to be settled in principle by the
phenomena of Acts. Here the D text is almost invariably the
longer, and, if we accept as a self-evident principle brevior lectio
potior, it follows that it is a paraphrastic expansion of the
shorter text. But ever since Prof. Ramsay wrote his St. Paul
the Traveller, scholars on purely historical grounds have been
emphasising the claims of quite a number of the Bezan additions
to be authentic. Clark shows in a large number of these cases,
that, if we accept the longer text of D as original, we can
explain the origin of the shorter B text. All we need suppose
is that one or more ancestors of B had suffered considerably
from what is, after all, the commonest of all mistakes of care-
less scribes, the accidental omission of lines. Wherever the
grammar of a sentence was destroyed by the omission, some
conjectural emendation of the injured text was made to restore
sense. The result of this process would inevitably be the
production of a shorter text, by the side of which the original
would look like a paraphrastic expansion.

But, if the riot of “ paraphrase ” supposed to be characteristic
of the Western text of Acts is otherwise explained, the accusation
of paraphrase in regard to the text of the Gospels must be given
a rehearing. In the Gospels the difference between the text
of B and D is much less striking. Except occasionally in Luke,
there are very few readings to which, without exaggeration,
the name paraphrase can be applied. There are variations in
the order of words, in the use of tenses, prepositions, conjunctions,
there is an occasional substitution of synonyms. But, as we
shall see later (p. 328 f.), differences of this sort are to be found
even between MSS. as closely related 88 καὶ BL. The differences
between D and any one of these MSS. are far more numerous
and more conspicuous than their differences from one another ;
but they are not such as to entitle us to assert that the D text

t Cf. J.7.S., Jan. 1915, p. 226 ff.

184 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

is a paraphrase of the B, while the text of L is not. And if
we once admit an element of corruption in B, then both B and D
might, though in a very different degree, be described as “ para-
phrasing ” the original text.

But the question whether in other respects the B or the ἢ
text is the purer has really very little to do with the value of
their evidence for insertions or omissions. Take a MS. like x.
In this, in the Gospels alone, there are no less than 46 instances
of accidental omission, which probably formed one or more
complete lines of the exemplar from which it was copied, due
to homoioteleuton. There are other omissions, presumably of
lines in the exemplar, where homoioteleuton cannot be invoked
in extenuation of the error. And there are innumerable omissions
of single words. Almost all the longer and many of the shorter
omissions have been added in the margin, by the first corrector
or sometimes by the original scribe. If one glances through
the photographic facsimile of x, there is hardly a page without
such correction. But κα is a handsome expensive copy produced
in a regular scriptorium, written by a professional scribe and
corrected by a careful διορθωτής. Now let us suppose that
the original text of Acts was something like D, and that the
first copy which reached Alexandria was separated from the
autograph by half a dozen ancestors. And suppose that two
or three of these ancestors had been copied by scribes neither
better nor worse than the scribe of x, but had not been gone
over by a διορθωτής. At each stage where the omission made
nonsense or bad grammar the owner would make the minimum
of conjectural emendation that would make the construction
grammatical or restore what from the context appeared to be
the sense intended. This process of omission and correction
repeated two or three times would result in a copy of the Acts
with a text like that of B.1_ If this was the first copy of the book

1 The hypothesis that accidental omission was supplemented by intentional
omission of what seemed unimportant detail is not to be entirely excluded.
Probably a longer period elapsed boforo the Acts was regarded as inspired
scripture than was the caso with the Gospels.

OH. VI INTERPOLATION AND ASSIMILATION 135

to reach Alexandria, the original, being on papyrus, would soon
be worn out; but all the earliest copies known in Alexandria
would be derived from it. It follows that the more scrupulously
subsequent scribes copied these, and the more anxious Alex-
andrian scholars were to go back to the earliest copies, the less
chance would there be of the original omissions being repaired
from MSS. brought in from outside. Even if a copy of the more
complete text was brought from Rome, the Alexandrian scholar,
like Hort, would condemn it as a corrupt and paraphrastic text.

Some NotTasLe READINGS

This leads me to suggest a principle of criticism which, so
far as I am aware, has not hitherto been formulated. Accidental
omissions are most likely to be made good in the place where a
book was first given to the world ; for there more than one copy
made from the autograph will be in circulation. On the other
hand, in a city far removed from the place of publication the
higher the local standard of textual purity, the greater the likeli-
hood that an accidental omission in the earliest copy which had
arrived there would remain unrepaired. The principle, of course,
must not be pressed too far. Indeed it only applies to omissions
which contained something of a more or less interesting character.
Omissions of words that added little to the sense, or which people
would prefer to think spurious, would be as likely to remain
unrepaired in the Church where a Gospel was first published
as in any other. The omission, for example, by Syr. 8. of the
words οὐδὲ ὁ υἱὸς Mt. xxiv. 36, cannot be defended, even if
proof positive was produced that this was the old text of Antioch
and that Matthew was written there. But the principle does
give a new importance to the identification of local texts. If,
as I think probable, Luke and Acts were written either at
Rome or Corinth, omissions in Bx will carry less weight than
those which occur in the Western text. In that case, we shall
be inclined to follow Hort in suspecting what he calls the

136 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

“ Western non-interpolations ”’ of Luke, on the ground that they
are absent from the Roman text of Luke; but we shall hesitate
to agree with him in rejecting passages for which Western
evidence is good, simply because they are absent from B. Again,
if Matthew, as I believe, was written in Antioch, passages found
only in Alexandrian or geographically Western authorities will
be regarded with suspicion, but we shall look with special favour
on any insertion attested by Syr. S.; and so far as this Gospel
is concerned we shall not be in too great a hurry to reject readings
which are only attested by the Lucianic text.

This principle works out well in practice. The most interest-
ing addition in Syr. 8. is in Mt. xxvii. 17. Pilate says to the
Jews, ““ Whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas,
or Jesus whom they call Christ 1 Thus phrased the alternative
offer made by Pilate has an extraordinarily original look. The
omission of the name “ Jesus” before Barabbas might easily
be accidental. ὑμῖν ᾿Ιησοῦν in © is written YMININ—the
omission of the second IN would be an instance of an error
so common in ancient MSS. that a technical term “ haplography ”
has been invented to describe it. Once omitted, motives of
reverence would come into play; and the dislike of the idea
that a brigand bore the sacred name, would lead to the preference
of the shorter text. This is not mere conjecture; Origen, we
have seen, found it in the text of Caesarea, but tries to reject it
on the ground that the name Jesus could not have belonged
to one who was a sinner.! And the weight of his name would
lead to its wholesale excision in other texts.

On the other hand there are three striking additions in
Matthew found in the non-Antiochene types of text represented
by B and D Old Latin respectively, which do not commend
themselves as genuine. The spear-thrust at the Crucifixion
(Mt. xxvii. 49) in By, etc., is easily explicable as an attempt at
harmonising Matthew and John. The saying “ Seek to rise,
etc.,” found in D ® Syr. C. after Mt. xx. 28 is a feebler and, I

+ Cf. the discussion by Burkitt, Hvangelion da Mepharreshé, vol. ii p. 277.

CH. VI INTERPOLATION AND ASSIMILATION 137

would add, less Christian way, of putting the maxim “take the
lowest place” as found in Lk. xiv.8f. The Light at the Baptism,
inserted by the Old Lat. MSS. a g (Mt. i. 16), which was known
to Justin and Tatian (and therefore may be early Roman), is
obviously legendary embellishment.

Similar results appear when we compare and contrast the
additions made to Luke in the Western and Alexandrian texts
respectively. We have already noted that a study of the
Acts tends on the whole—there are exceptions in all statements
with regard to MSS.—to confirm the originality of the longer
Western text. Of the additions to the Gospel, the longest and
the best attested outside is the incident of the Bloody Sweat and
the comforting angel in Gethsemane, Lk. xxii. 43-44: Justin
Martyr, c. 153, alludes to this and expressly says that it occurs
“in the memoirs,” his term for the Gospels. It was in the text
known to Irenaeus, Tatian, and Hippolytus. Thus it must
have stood in the Roman text at a very early date. The fact
that it was known to Dionysius of Alexandria, c. 250, and occurs
in NL suggests that it may have belonged to that very early
state of the Western text which had invaded Alexandria at the
time of Clement c.200. True it is omitted by Syr.8., but it occurs
in Syr. C., and in the oldest MS. of the Armenian there is a note
saying that it occurred in the “first translations”? but was
omitted in the ‘‘ newly issued translations.” Since the oldest
Armenian seems to have been made from the Syriac, it is not
impossible that it has been “ revised out” in Syr. ὃ. Linguistic-
ally, as I think Harnack was the first to point out, the passage,
short as it is, betrays several characteristically Lucan expres-
sions. Lastly, we gather from Epiphanius, who defends the
reading on account of its antiquity, that it caused serious per-
plexity to some orthodox persons as seemingly derogatory to
the full Divinity of our Lord. Presumably it seemed beneath
the dignity of the Uncreated Word Incarnate to evince such a
degree of πάθος ; and still more to require a created angel as a
comforter. Hence there was every reason, if not for excising it

138 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

from the text, at least for regarding MSS. in which it had
been accidentally omitted as original. We conclude then that
B W 579, etc., which omit the words, though they may possibly
give the earliest Alexandrian text, do not preserve the original
words of Luke.

Another famous omission attested not only by B W 579 but
also by fam. © and Syr. 8. is the cry from the Cross, “Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they do,” Lk. xxii. 34.
Here we cannot be quite sure that the reading stood in the earliest
form of the Roman text; for, though found in ce and known
to Irenaeus and Tatian, it is omitted by Dab. But ce, though
mixed MSS., probably represent the African Latin, which on
the whole seems nearer than a ὃ to the oldest Roman text. And
the reading is found in Origen (Lat. trans.) as well as x L Syr. C.
Arm. Some years ago the suggestion was made, I think by
Dr. Rendel Harris, that the passage had been deleted because
some Christian in the second century found it hard to believe
that God could or ought to forgive the Jews, since they were the
chief instigators in all the persecutions, and, unlike the Gentiles,
had no excuse for their villainous conduct—being originally
called to be the chosen people and the possessors of the scriptures
that spoke of Christ. One might add, it would have appeared
to a second-century Christian that, as a mere matter of fact,
God had not forgiven the Jews. Twice within seventy years
Jerusalem had been destroyed and hundreds of thousands of
Jews massacred and enslaved. It followed that, if Christ had
prayed that prayer, God had declined to grant it. How much
simpler to surmise the words to be an interpolation? And, if
even a single copy could be found lacking the words, the surmise
would become a certainty. From the MS. evidence we must
infer that the omission, if it be an omission, must have been
made at an earlier date than that of the Bloody Sweat. The
words, of course, may well have been handed down in a genuine
tradition, even if they were not recorded by Luke. But their
claim to be an authentic part of the text of the Third Gospel

CH. VI INTERPOLATION AND ASSIMILATION 139

deserves serious consideration ; and, whatever may be the final
verdict, it will be worth while to have stated the case, if only to
illustrate the fact that absence from certain MSS. is not neces-
sarily evidence of interpolation.

ASSIMILATION OF PARALLELS

Jerome in his preface to the Vulgate Gospels mentions
assimilation of the texts of the Gospels to one another in parallel
passages as one of the chief sources of corruption of the text.
The remark was an acute one, and a study of the existing MSS.
shows that it is the commonest of all forms of error. The best
known example is the Lord’s prayer, which in the oldest MSS.
occurs in a shorter form in Luke; in the Byzantine text it is
assimilated to Matthew. As a textual phenomenon assimilation
is not peculiar to the Gospels. It occurs to a small extent in
Homer, where it is found that recurrent phrases tend to
resemble one another more closely in the inferior than they do
in the better MSS. It has also operated as a corrupting influence
on the text of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians.
But the Gospels are a special case, since such a large proportion
of their total contents, expressed in language often all but
identical, occurs in more than one of them, so that the oppor-
tunity they afford for assimilation of parallel passages is quite
unique. The danger of this particular form ‘of corruption
would be still further increased by the fact that, not only would
most scribes know the Gospels almost by heart, but a scribe who
was copying Mark or Luke was usually one who had just
refreshed his memory by copying out the text as it stands in
Matthew. With the words of one Gospel running in his head
it would be exceedingly difficult to copy accurately passages in
another Gospel which were almost but not quite the same.

But assimilation is not only the commonest source of cor-
ruption of the text of the Gospels, it is also the one most
difficult to check. Other forms of corruption would result in

140 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

each separate local text having its own special set of wrong
readings; these can be detected by comparison with other
texts. But assimilation of parallels, beg a process which must
have gone on independently in all local texts, might easily
result in identical errors along different lines of transmission.
Hence, though each text will have its own special set of assimila-
tions, there is no security that occasionally, especially in certain
striking passages, all texts may not have coincided upon the
same assimilation. This is a possibility that neither textual critics
nor students of the Synoptic Problem have ever really faced.

Now the strongest argument for the general purity of the B
text is that it is free from so many of the assimilations that
are found in the Later Alexandrian, the ‘“‘ Western,” or the
Byzantine texts. But, though far freer from assimilation of
parallels than any other text, B is not entirely immune. And
there are quite a number of cases where the Western text—
though on the whole it has suffered far more than any other in
this way—is free from particular assimilations which have
infected B. Detailed evidence on this point I shall reserve for
the chapter on the Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke
against Mark. In this place I propose merely to call attention
to the importance in regard to this particular issue of the set
of readings called by Hort “ Western non-interpolations,” and
to connect it with the previous discussion of the Roman and
Alexandrian texts of Luke.

Eight of the nine readings to which Hort gave the name
“Western non-interpolations ”’ occur towards the end of Luke,
nv Jess than six being in the last chapter (the ninth is the spear
thrust, Mt. xxvii. 49). These are omitted by D and the Old
Latin, but, with two exceptions, by no other MS. Hort coined
the complicated title “‘ Western non-interpolation,” in order to
avoid smirching the fair name of the “ Neutral” text by speaking
of these readings as “ Neutral interpolations”; but, assuming
them not to be genuine, that is what they really are. All the
same I believe he was right in rejecting at any rate the majority

cH, VI INTERPOLATION AND ASSIMILATION 141

of them. Firstly, if Luke was written in the West, it is hard to
suppose that the omission of so many passages, all of an interesting
character and all crowded into the same context, would have
escaped notice at Rome, where presumably other copies from
which the gaps could be refilled would be available. Secondly,
as Hort saw, most of these additions are of the nature of har-
monisations between Luke and other parts of'the New Testament.
But Hort was, I think, mistaken in his emphasis on these nine
out of a large number of omissions by the same Western
authorities.

Besides the eight striking readings in the last three chapters
of Luke and the one in Matthew to which Hort gives the special
title ‘“‘ Western non-interpolations,” there are a large number of
smaller omissions in the Old Latin, sometimes supported by D,
of words or sentences found in the B text. To some of these
Hort himself calls attention (11. p. 176), and he puts them in
single brackets in his text—whereas the selected nine are dis-
tinguished by double brackets.’ But there are other omissions
consisting only of a word or two which he ignores. But, if Hort
was right in definitely rejecting as assimilations the major
“ non-interpolations”’ in Matthew and Luke (which merely re-
produce the general sense of something found in another Gospel),
he ought to have rejected more than twenty other passages in
most of which the insertion reproduces in one Gospel the
actual words of a parallel passage in another. To the student of
the Synoptic Problem these minor omissions in the Western
text are all important, though it would be unsafe to assume that
the omission is in every case original; D is no more infallible

1 The “ Western non-interpolations ” in double brackets are in Lk. xxii.
19-20, xxiv. 3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51, 52; also the mention of the spear thrust not
found in the T.R., Mt. xxvii. 49. Those in single brackets, sometimes con-
sisting of only a few words, occur in Mt. vi. 15, 25, ix. 34, xiii. 33, xxi. 44,
xxiii. 26; Mk. ii. 22, x. 2, xiv. 39; Lk. v. 39, x. 41 f., xii. 19, 21, 39, xxii. 62,
xxiv. 9; Jn. iii. 32, iv. 9 (cf. W.H. ii. p, 176). Among those not noted ir
Hort’s text are Mt. xxi. 23 διδάσκοντι (om. abce Syr. S. C.); Mk. ix. 35 (om,
Dk); Mk. xiv. 65 καὶ περικαλύπτειν (om. Daf); Lk. viii. 44 τοῦ κρασπέδου
(om. Ὁ Lat.) ; Jn. xii. 8 (om. D Syr. S.); others are discussed below, Chap. XI.

142 THE FOUR GOSPELS rt. 1

when it omits than when it inserts. I emphasise this point
because Hort’s isolation of these nine passages very much obscures
the extent to which the B text has suffered from assimilation, not
only as between Matthew and Luke, but also between the
Synoptics and John.

Nevertheless it is worth while to protest against a too ready
inference that, in regard to genuineness, the whole series, whether
of major or minor “ non-interpolations,” must stand or fall
together. This is a fallacy. What the MS. evidence proves is
that these passages were, as a matter of fact, absent from the
ancestor of D and the Old Latin, but present in an ultimate
ancestor of all other texts. The tacit assumption that either
the one or the other of these ancestors was in every case correct
is quite unwarranted. No MS. or group of MSS. is even approxi-
mately infallible; and all have suffered from some accidental
omissions. It is more probable that in some cases B is correct
in retaining the words, even if in the majority D is right in
omitting them. The real case against the genuineness of these
readings rests, I must repeat, not on their omission in one line
of the MS. tradition, but in the fact that they look like attempts
at harmonisation, especially between the Synoptics and John.

But there is one of Hort’s nine passages where the argument
from assimilation seems to me to cut the other way. Can the
sentence, “and he was taken up into heaven,” Lk. xxiv. 51,
really be regarded as due to “ assimilation ” from the story of
the Ascension in the Acts? If so, it is an assimilation of an
incredibly unskilful kind ; for it makes the Ascension take place
on Easter Day instead of forty days later as the Acts relates.
Besides, the words “he was taken up into heaven” seem
required to explain the back reference in Acts i. 2, which implies
that the Gospel contained an account of what Jesus began to do
and to teach “until the day when he was taken up.” This is
rather pointless unless the Gospel contained an account of the
Ascension. On linguistic grounds it is probable! that a con-

1 Cf. Hawkins’ Hor. Syn. p. 177 ff.

CH. VI INTERPOLATION AND ASSIMILATION 143

siderable interval elapsed between the writing of the Gospel and
Acts. In the interval the author may have come across a fresh
cycle of tradition. If so, Acts 1. 2 should be read as an attempt
by the author to recall his former statement with the object of
correcting it in favour of the account of the Ascension forty days
later which immediately follows. In that case the omission
of the words in Lk. xxiv. 51 is an attempt to remove a contra-
diction between the Gospel and the Acts; it is the text which
omits, not that which inserts, that has suffered harmonistic
correction.

Another clear example of the avoidance by the Roman text
of Luke of an assimilation found in the Alexandrian is the
Voice at the Baptism, Lk. i. 22. In Br, etc., the words are
practically identical with those in Mark and Matthew, 1.6.
“Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.” But
Dabcff?, etc., with the notable support of Clement of Alex-
andria, read ‘‘ Thou art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten
thee.” Now this reading is quite definitely that cited by
Justin and was therefore current in Rome c. 155. Again, on
grounds of internal probability it is clearly to be preferred for
two reasons. (a) The tendency of scribal alterations would be
to make the text of Luke agree with Matthew and Mark, as
in B; with this reading, on the contrary, there is a discrepancy
between the Gospels. (6) The Lucan reading could readily be
quoted in favour of the view, afterwards regarded as heretical,
that Christ only became the Son of God at his Baptism. Once,
therefore, the assimilation with the other Gospels had been
made in any MS., it would be preferred as more orthodox, and
would rapidly be taken up into other texts.

I would not, however, leave the reader with the impression
that the D text has suffered less from assimilation than that
of B. Quite the contrary. Assimilation is not only more
frequent, but more thoroughgoing. Take, for example, μὴ
φοβοῦ: ἀπὸ τοῦ viv ἀνθρώπους ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν, Lk. v. 10. Here
D, with the partial support of 6, reads δεῦτε καὶ μὴ γένεσθε

144 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

ἁλιεῖς LyOvwv* ποιήσω γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων, which is very
much closer to the language of Matthew. But it is unnecessary
to labour this point, since everybody admits that, not only the
“Western”? and the Byzantine texts as a whole, but each
different sub-group of MSS. of these texts, have in different
ways and in different places suffered assimilation. The text
of B alone has been placed by critics on a pedestal by itself,
and, because it has undoubtedly suffered less than any other
MS., has been supposed to be immune. And this unfounded
supposition has played havoc with the scientific study of the
Synoptic Problem.

CoNCLUSION

The history of the text of the Gospels is, as it were, concen-
trated into a single passage in the set of variants in the lists of
the Twelve Apostles (Mt. x. 2-4, Mk. iii. 16-19, Lk. vi. 14-16).
It would appear that in the first century local traditions varied
as to the twelfth name; and each of the Synoptics embodies a
different tradition. Origen remarks,! “The same man whom
Matthew calls Lebbaeus and Mark Thaddaeus, Luke writes as
Judas of James.” It appears, then, that in the text he used,
obviously in this instance the correct one, each Gospel gave a
different name. In Syr. 8. Judas, nm abh (but not in Dk)
Judas Zelotes is substituted for Lebbaeus in Matthew, though
not in Mark. For this part of Matthew e is missing, but in this
MS. the name Judas is substituted in Mark also. If we re-
member that Judas, not Iscariot, is mentioned as one of the
Twelve by John, we understand why the list which contained
his name should be supposed the more authentic. Clearly the
discrepancy troubled scribes. We turn to the Greek uncials
and what do we find? There is no variant in Luke; but By
read Thaddaeus in both Matthew and Mark ; 2 D reads Lebbaeus

1 Com. in Rom. praef.

2-124 (probably also the Ferrar ancestor) supports BX. Other members
of fam. 8 have the Byzantine conflation.

CH. VI INTERPOLATION AND ASSIMILATION 145

in both Gospels; while the Byzantine text reads ‘“ Lebbaeus
who is called Thaddaeus ” in Matthew, but is content to follow
Bw in Mark. We notice three points. (1) The tendency to
assimilation is seen at work everywhere—in δαὶ Β, in D, and in the
Old Latin and Old Syriac—but in each case operates somewhat
differently. (2) The Byzantine text is “ conflate” ; it ingeniously
combines the readings of two ancient traditions each of which
had good support. (3) Editors and scribes are less concerned
to correct the text of Mark. .

Hort, we have argued, was right in regarding the Textus
Receptus as a descendant of the revision made by Lucian of
Antioch about a.p. 300. And he was right in his contention that
in the main this revision was based on earlier texts which we can
still identify. We group these earlier texts into an Egyptian,
admirably preserved in καὶ B L; an Italian and Gallic, represented,
with many corruptions, in D a b-ff*; an African (perhaps = earlier
Roman), found in k, e, W™*:; an Antiochene, less adequately known
to us through the Old Syriac ; and a Caesarean, fairly well pre-
served in the non-Byzantine readings of fam. Θ. This grouping
of the older texts differs radically from Hort’s, but not in a way
that seriously affects his view of the methods of Lucian’s revision,
though we may feel a little less confident than he that Lucian
possessed no MS. containing ancient and possibly correct readings
not found in our surviving authorities. But then comes the
really fundamental question : was Hort right in reprinting almost
in its entirety the oldest Egyptian text ? Or was Lucian right
in the principle, if not in its detailed application, of framing an
eclectic text, adopting readings now from one text, now from
another, presumably on the combined grounds of extent and
antiquity of attestation and of “‘ internal probability ”’ ?

To this question one must, I think, answer that the eclectic
principle of deciding in each separate case on grounds of
“internal probability’ what appears to be the best reading
is, in spite of its subjectivity, theoretically sounder than the
almost slavish following of a single text which Hort preferred.

146 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. I

But this in no way means that we return to the Textus Receptus.
Lucian’s canons of “ internal probability ” differed fundamentally
from ours. For example, his eye would be inclined to look
with most favour on that one of two readings which attributed
to an evangelist a more smooth, graceful, and stately style.
To us, roughness, within limits, is a sign of originality. Again,
to him it would seem more likely that a reading, supposing it
was found in MSS. sufficiently numerous and ancient, which
brought two evangelists into closer agreement with one another
was more likely to be original than one which enhanced the
difference between them. We should judge otherwise. Hence,
even if we accept the necessity of an eclectic text, the selection
of readings admitted to it would differ very considerably from
that made by Lucian. On the other hand, while realising that
B has more wrong readings than Hort was ready to admit,
due weight must be given to Hort’s principle that the authority
of a MS., which in a majority of cases supports what is clearly
the right reading, counts for more than that of others in cases
where decision is more difficult. Hence a critical text of the
Gospels will still, like that of Westcott and Hort, be primarily
based on the text of Alexandria as preserved in our two oldest
MSS. Bs. But a future editor will be on the look out for
evidence that will enable him to detect instances where these, like
all other MSS., have been corrupted by assimilation of parallel
passages, and he will be ready to accept a far larger number of
readings found in those authorities which represent the local
texts of other churches. In particular he will give special weight
to the readings of fam. ©.

The rejection, however, of a theory which enabled Hort to
attribute supreme authority to the B text complicates in practice
the task of the textual critic. Textual criticism is not the only
department of life where an infallible guide, if such existed, would
save us trouble and uncertainty. No purely external mechanical
test of the genuineness of readings has yet been devised. Where
important variants exist, and can be shown to have existed as

CH. VI INTERPOLATION AND ASSIMILATION 147

early as the third century, we can in the last resort only fall back
on the exercise of insight and common sense to make our choice.
Those qualities being rare, or, at any rate, hard to recognise by
any objective test in a matter of this kind, there will always
remain a difference of opinion on many points. It follows that,
if by a “ scientific ” text is meant one reached by some mechanical
and objective principles which completely rule out the subjective
vagaries of the individual editor, such cannot be attained. In this
department of knowledge the appeal is in the last resort to the
insight, judgement, and common sense of the individual scholar,
which are necessarily “ subjective.”

What, however, is most wanted at the present moment is
not a new critical text—for most purposes Westcott and Hort
is good enough. The real need is for an edition of an entirely
different character—a thesaurus of various readings to bring up
to date Tischendorf’s large edition of 1869. von Soden attempted
this and failed ; his edition is not only full of inaccuracies, it is
often actually unintelligible. But, I would insist, in such an
edition, it is of quite fundamental importance that the text
printed above the Apparatus Criticus should be, not an eclectic
text constructed by the editor himself, but the Byzantine text.
The reason is obvious. The number of MSS. which have
altogether escaped revision from the Byzantine standard is
extremely small, yet the readings which the critic most wants
to know are those of older texts which differ from the
Byzantine text; if, then, the Byzantine text is printed above
the Apparatus Criticus, the readings the critic first wants are
those which first strike the eye. Again the Apparatus itself would
be enormously simplified ; for it need only contain readings which
differ from that text. Any MS. not cited in the Apparatus would
be understood, either to agree with the text printed at the top of
the page, or not to be extant for that passage ; and accordingly

1 For this purpose the Byzantine text should be determined by some
purely objective criterion, such as the agreement of two out of the three
MSS. S VQ, or, perhaps better, ES V.

148 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

the extent of hiatus in important MSS. should be noted on each
page. MSS. should be cited in separate groups, according
as they habitually agree with the Alexandrian, Eastern or
Western type of text. Lastly, since textual criticism under the
most favourable circumstances involves great strain on the
eyesight, small print and small numbers and letters above the
line, such as von Soden delights in, should be resolutely eschewed.

In conclusion it is worth while to note that those same
investigations which have compelled us to reject Hort’s theory
have shown that the authorities available for determining the
text are more numerous and more independent of one another
than that theory would allow. It follows, therefore, that, though
on minor points of reading absolute certainty may often be
unobtainable, a text of the Gospels can be reached, the freedom
of which from serious modification or interpolation is guaranteed
by the concurrence of different lines of ancient and independent
evidence. For the historian, as well as for the ordinary Christian
reader, a text like that of Hort or Tischendorf, or that used in
preparing the Revised Version, may be taken as reliable for all
ordinary purposes. But for fine points of scholarship, or when
dealing with the Synoptic Problem, where the settlement of a
question of great import may depend on the minutest verbal
resemblances or differences between the Gospels, it is vital
to realise that in our search for the original reading we must,
on occasion, go behind the printed texts.

PART II

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

149

ΠΈΟΟΡ Ἴ 5+ 083 W “ΟΔ (5 Ἢ Ὃ) ὍΟΣ (ΒυτηΑ8}}) Ὁ “ΟΟΔ Ὃ OYN'T-0F0I1g ΘΡΤΙ 971 8001 MOTB, Β9Β19Α 109 SBY γ18}0

Ogdv
yqU140) (6)
AMT

ce αν
yooryuy
MAHLIVA

5
»““-
΄ N

ie Ν 09 adv oo dy Juowrpeay y
᾿ by Lee wadesav,) yoorjuy 09 dv ak
ed a Be "1 [νυ] awoy ~---

WIV

SHOUNOS UHL ANY SOILGONAS HHL ‘WVYOVIC

VII
THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION

SYNOPSIS

HiIsTORIANS AND THEIR SOURCES

The conception of “ copyright ’’—a consequence of the invention
of printing—has entirely changed the conditions under which it
is legitimate for authors to make use of previous writers. Ancient
historians frequently reproduce almost verbatim considerable
portions of the work of their predecessors.

THE Priority oF Mark

The accepted view that Mark (so far from being, as Augustine
thought, an abridgement of Matthew) was a source used by Matthew
and Luke requires slightly restating. Matthew may be regarded as
an enlarged edition of Mark; Luke is an independent work in-
corporating considerable portions of Mark.

Five reasons for accepting the priority of Mark.

(1) Matthew reproduces 90 °%% of the subject matter of Mark
in language very largely identical with that of Mark; Luke does the
same for rather more than half of Mark,

(2) In any average section, which occurs in the three Gospels,
the majority of the actual words used by Mark are reproduced by
Matthew and Luke, either alternately or both together.

(3) The relative order of incidents and sections in Mark is in
general supported by both Matthew and Luke; where either of
them deserts Mark, the other is usually found supporting him.

This conjunction and alternation of Matthew and Luke in their
agreement with Mark as regards (a) content, (b) wording, (c) order, is
only explicable if they are incorporating a source identical, or all but
identical, with Mark.

(4) The primitive character of Mark is further shown by (a) the
use of phrases likely to cause offence, which are omitted or toned

1651

152 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 0

down in the other Gospels, (6) roughness of style and grammar, and
the preservation of Aramaic words.

(5) The way in which Marcan and non-Marcan material is
distributed in Matthew and Luke respectively looks as if each had
before him the Marcan material in a single document, and was faced
with the problem of combining this with material from other sources.

Matthew’s solution was to make Mark’s story the framework
into which non-Marcan material is fitted, on the principle of joining
like to ike. Luke follows the simpler method of giving Marcan and
non-Marcan material in alternate blocks; except in the Passion
story, where, from the nature of the case, some interweaving of
sources was inevitable.

Two objections to the view that the document used by Matthew
and Luke was exactly identical wich Mark. (1) Why did they omit
certain sections of Mark? (2) How explain certain minute verbal
agreements of the other two against Mark? To meet these, the
theory of an Ur-Marcus, or earlier edition of Mark, has been proposed.
Its merits will be determined by the study of the facts that follow—
subject to the general consideration that they were authors not
scribes, and its implications.

MattTHEew’s Omissions

At first sight, these seem to number 55 verses (of which 25 are
found in Luke), but under examination even this small amount
rapidly shrinks.

Matthew appears to omit three miracles recorded by Mark; but
details from the omitted sections appear elsewhere in Matthew as
amplifications or modifications of similar stories which he has em-
bodied from Mark. Matthew, then, was not omitting, but rather
conflating, incidents which stood in Mark.

Three other items omitted by Matthew are guaranteed as Marcan
by internal evidence. Matthew therefore used our Mark.

LuKe’s GREAT OMISSION

The case for an Ur-Marcus rests mainly on the fact that Luke
omits the long section Mk. vi. 45-viii. 26.

The theory is plausible that Luke’s copy of Mark lacked vi. 53-
vili. 21, 1.6. all but the first and last paragraphs of this section.
Formidable objections, however, arise from (a) linguistic evidence
for genuineness of the section adduced by Hawkins, (δ) the need of
postulating two editions of Mark, both of which were without a
conclusion ; for the text of Mark used by Matthew and Luke seems,
like that of our oldest MSS., to have ended at xvi. 8

It is possible that Luke intentionally omitted this section. As an

cH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 153

alternative, a case is stated for the view that, in the copy of Mark
used by him, the section was absent through accidental mutilation
of the papyrus roll.

Minor AGREEMENTS OF MatTHEW AND LUKE

These are discussed at length, with reference to the original
Greek, in Chapter XI. They appear to be due to three causes.
(1) In a few passages there is evidence for the existence of a version
of a saying or incident in Q parallel to,that of Mark. (2) Matthew
and Luke consistently improve Mark’s style and grammar; inevit-
ably, therefore, they will sometimes coincide in the more obvious
corrections. (3) A larger number are explicable as corrupt readings
of the great MSS., due to assimilation of parallels as between Matthew
and Luke or to minute errors in the text of Mark.

In the majority of cases the reading found in Matthew and Luke
is, from the standpoint of grammar or style, an improvement on Mark.
It follows that if the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark
cannot be entirely explained by the causes above mentioned, the
only alternative is the hypothesis of Dr. Sanday that the text of
Mark used by the other evangelists had been subjected to a slight
stylistic revision. But this, be it noted, is the exact reverse of any
Ur-Marcus theory ; for it implies that our text of Mark is more
primitive than the text used by Matthew and Luke.

THe DocumMENT Q

Matthew and Luke have in common material, which is not found
in Mark, amounting to about 200 verses, mostly discourse. The
hypothesis that this was derived from a document now lost—
commonly alluded to by the symbol Q—is more probable than the
view (a) that Luke copied Matthew (or vice versa), or (b) that the
common source was oral tradition.

The Q hypothesis, however, can be pressed too far. (1) Where the
versions of sayings in Matthew and Luke differ considerably, the
probability is high that one (or both) of the two versions did not
come from Q. (2) Matthew probably omitted some sayings of Q
which Luke retained, and wice versa. (3) Short epigrammatic
sayings would be likely to circulate separately by word of mouth.
Hence all attempts at a reconstruction of Q must be tentative.

THE OVERLAPPING OF Q AND Mark

Certain items, in all about 50 verses, occur in both Mark and Q.
Each had a version of John’s preaching, the Baptism and Temptation,

154 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. ΤΙ

the Beelzebub Controversy, the parables of the Mustard Seed and
Leaven and of some shorter sayings.

Some critics hold that Mark’s version of the above items was
derived from Q. More probably Mark and Q represent independent
traditions. This is shown by detailed examination of the passages
in question.

A ΜΌΡΒΕΝ ILLUSTRATION

An illustration from contemporary literature of the necessity
on occasion, and of the working out in practice of editorial processes
like “ conflation,” ‘‘ agglomeration,” etc.

The representation of Christ’s life and teaching in Matthew and
Luke comparable, not to the exactness of photographic reproduction,
but rather to the creative interpretation in a great portrait.

ADDITIONAL NoTES

(A) Omissions from Mark

List of passages of Mark which are absent (a) from both Matthew
and Luke, (b) from Matthew only, (c) from Luke only; (d) list of
passages of Mark which are absent from Luke but for which Luke
in another context substitutes a version from a different source.

(B) The non-Marcan parallels in Matthew and Luke
(C) Passages peculiar to Matthew
(D) Passages peculiar to Luke

CHAPTER VII
THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION

HiIsTORIANS AND THEIR SOURCES

THE mechanical invention of printing has reacted on the methods
and conventions of authorship itself in more ways than we are
apt to imagine. When books were copied by hand, copyright
had no commercial value; no kind of injury could be done
either to author or publisher by any one who made and sold
copies. But in the setting up of a printed book capital is sunk ;
work has been done and a risk has been incurred, in return -
for which it is reasonable that the publisher should enjoy such
legal protection against unauthorised reproductions as will
enable him to derive a fair profit. Again, in antiquity an
author, unless, as most commonly happened, he was a man of
inherited wealth, lived on the bounty of some noble patron of
letters. Printing has enabled a modern Horace to live, not
by flattering a Maecenas, but on the profits of his books. For
both these reasons the conception of property in literature has
arisen.

Hence there has gradually grown up an entirely different
convention as to the manner and conditions under which it is
legitimate to make use of what others have written. The
change is one which affects historical more than any other kind
of writing. Whenever a historian is not an actual eye-witness of
the events he records, or the first to write down a living tradition,

he is bound to depend to a large extent on the works of previous
155

156 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. O

historians. The modern convention requires that when this
happens he shall either quote the exact words of his authority
or entirely re-write the whole story with some general indication
of the source from which it comes. Here again the printing
press has made a difference. It has facilitated the development
of inverted commas, footnotes for reference, and other such
devices unknown to the scribes of Classical Antiquity, which
make it easy for an author to indicate without clumsy circum-
locutions the exact extent of his debt to predecessors. The
conventions of every art are determined by what is mechanically
possible ; it is not, therefore, surprising that these inventions
have reacted on actual methods of composition employed by the
modern author in so far as these entail a use of previous writers.
In antiquity, however, and in the Middle Ages, only the
writings of a few outstanding men like Thucydides are wholly
original; more commonly the historian pursued what we should
call a method of “scissors and paste.” Without any acknow-
ledgement, he will copy page after page from his source, omitting
passages that for his purpose seem irrelevant, adding here and
there materia] from some other authority. What he copies he
frequently gives almost word for word, but he will often abridge,
and occasionally paraphrase, in order to elucidate some difficulty
or to preclude what he would regard as a false impression which
the language of the original might convey.

This kind of editorial adaptation of earlier sources can be
traced in all the historical books of the Old Testament, and in
many classical and mediaeval writers. J would call attention
to one example in each of these fields where the survival of the
original sources, the nature of the subject matter, and the
accessibility to the ordinary reader of the relevant literature,
combine to make a study of ancient methods and their bearing
on our present investigation both exceptionally profitable and
relatively easy. Turn to the books of Chronicles in a reference
Bible. It is clear that, from 1 Chron. x. on, almost everything
is an abridgement, with trifling modifications, of the narrative

cH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 157

in the books of Samuel and Kings.1 Consult the appendices
dealing with the earliest accounts of St. Francis of Assisi, either
in the Life by Sabatier or in that by Father Cuthbert, and you
will see a “ synoptic problem,” explicable on these lines. Lastly,
compare the fragment of the Greek historian Ephorus lately
discovered at Oxyrhynchus with the account of the same events
in Diodorus,” and you will find an illustration in a Greek writer
practically contemporary with the authors of the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke. You will notice, and the analogy is
important, that the Greek writer, in contrast to the Hebrew,
makes many more little alterations of phrase so as to leave
upon all that he has incorporated the impress of his own style.

THe Priority or Mark

Such being the almost universal method of ancient historians,
whether Jewish or Greek, it is natural to ask whether the
remarkable resemblance between the first three Gospels, which
has caused the name Synoptic to be applied to them, would not
be most easily explained on the hypothesis that they incorporate
earlier documents. A century of discussion has resulted in a
consensus of scholars that this is the case, and that the authors
of the First and Third Gospels made use either of our Mark, or
of a document all but identical with Mark. The former and the
simpler of these alternatives, viz. that they used our Mark, is
the one which I hope in the course of this and the following
chapters to establish beyond reasonable doubt.

The attempt has recently been made to revive the solution,
first put forward by Augustine (cf. p. 10), who styles Mark a
kind of abridger and lackey of Matthew, “ Tanquam breviator
et pedesequus ejus.”” But Augustine did not possess a Synopsis
of the Greek text conveniently printed in parallel columns.

1 These and other O.T. analogies may most conveniently be studied in
Deuterographs by R. B. Girdlestone (Oxford, 1894), where the relevant passages

are printed in parallel columns with the differences indicated by italics.
2 Cf. Oxyrhynchus Papyrt, xiii. p. 102 ff.

158 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

Otherwise a person of his intelligence could not have failed to
perceive that, where the two Gospels are parallel, it is usually
Matthew, and not Mark, who does the abbreviation. For
example, the number of words employed by Mark to tell the
stories of the Gadarene Demoniac, Jairus’ Daughter, and the
Feeding of the Five Thousand are respectively 325, 374 and 235 ;
Matthew contrives to tell them in 136, 135 and 157 words.
Now there is nothing antecedently improbable in the idea that
for certain purposes an abbreviated version of the Gospel might
be desired; but only a lunatic would leave out Matthew’s
account of the Infancy, the Sermon on the Mount, and practically
all the parables, in order to get room for purely verbal expansion
of what was retained. On the other hand, if we suppose Mark
to be the older document, the verbal compression and omission
of minor detail seen in the parallels in Matthew has an obvious
purpose, in that it gives more room for the introduction of a mass
of highly important teaching material not found in Mark.

Further advance, however, towards a satisfactory solution
of the Synoptic Problem has been, in my opinion, retarded by
the tacit assumption of scholars that, if Matthew and Luke
both used Mark, they must have used it in the same way. To
Professor Burkitt, I believe, belongs the credit of first protesting
against this assumption: “ Matthew is a fresh edition of Mark,
revised, rearranged, and enriched with new material; ...
Luke is a new historical work made by combining parts of
Mark with parts of other documents.” ? The distinction thus
stated by Burkitt I shall endeavour to justify and to elaborate
in a new direction in Chap. VIII. I conceive it to be one of
fundamental importance in any attempt to estimate the value
of the Third Gospel as an historical authority for the life of
Christ.

Partly in order to clear the way for a more thorough investi-
gation of this point, partly because this book is written‘for others

1 Cf. J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae*, p. 159 (Oxford, 1909).
2 The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus (Constable, 1922).

OEE ee ,»»υσ να. ΜΝ

OH. VIL THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 159

besides students of theology, I will now present a summary

statement of the main facts and considerations which show the
dependence of Matthew and Luke upon Mark. Familiar as these
are to scholars, they are frequently conceived of in a way which
tends to obscure some of the remoter issues dependent on them.
They can most conveniently be presented under five main heads.

I. The authentic text of Mark contains 661 verses. Matthew
reproduced the substance of over 600 of these. Mark’s style is
diffuse, Matthew's succinct ; so that in adapting Mark’s language
Matthew compresses so much that the 600 odd verses taken
from Mark supply rather less than half the material contained
in the 1068 verses of the longer Gospel. Yet, in spite of this
abbreviation, it is found that Matthew employs 51% of the
actual words used by Mark.

The relation between Luke and Mark cannot be stated in this
precise statistical way—for two reasons. First, in his account
of the Last Supper and Passion, Luke appears to be ‘
flating ’—to use the convenient technical term for the mixing
of two sources—the Marcan story with a parallel version derived
from another source, and he does this in a way which often makes
it very hard to decide in regard to certain verses whether Luke’s
version is a paraphrase of Mark or is derived from his other
source. Indeed there are only some 24 verses (cf. p. 216 f.) in this
part of Luke’s Gospel which can be identified with practical
certainty as derived from Mark, though it would be hazardous to
limit Luke’s debt to Mark to these 24. Secondly, there are
also, outside the Passion story, a number of cases where Luke
appears deliberately to substitute a non-Marcan for the Marcan
version of a story or piece of teaching. Thus the Rejection at
Nazareth, the Call of Peter, the parable of the Mustard Seed, the
Beelzebub Controversy, the Great Commandment, the Anointing,
and several less important items are given by Luke in a version
substantially different from that in Mark, and always, it is

‘ con-

1 Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, ed. W. Sanday, pp. 85 ff.
(Clarendon Press, 1911).

160 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

important to notice, in a context quite other from that in which
they appear in Mark.

Another striking feature in Luke’s relation to Mark is his
“Great Omission,” so called, of a continuous section of 74
verses, Mk. vi. 45-viii. 26. Besides this he omits several shorter
sections, which added together amount to 56 verses. If we
leave out of account all passages where there is reason to suspect
that Luke has used a non-Marcan source, it appears on an approxi-
mate estimate that about 350 verses (i.e. just over one half of
Mark) have been reproduced by Luke. When following Mark,
Luke alters the wording of his original a trifle more than
Matthew does ; on the other hand he retains many details which
Matthew omits, and he does not compress the language quite so
much. The result is that on an average Luke retains 53%
of the actual words of Mark, that is, a very slightly higher
proportion than does Matthew.

From these various figures it appears that, while Matthew
omits less than 10 % of the subject matter of Mark, Luke omits
more than 45 %, but for much of this he substitutes similar
matter from another source. Each of them omits numerous
points of detail and several complete sections of Mark which
the other reproduces; but sometimes they both concur in
making the same omission. The student who desires to get
a clear grasp of the phenomena would do well to prepare for
himself, by the aid of the lists in the Additional Note (A) at the
end of this chapter, a marked copy of the second Gospel, indicat-
ing by brackets of four different shapes or colours—(a) passages
peculiar to Mark; (6) those reproduced by Luke, but not by
Matthew ; (c) those reproduced by Matthew, but not by Luke ;
(4) those which Luke omits, but for which in another context he
substitutes a parallel version.

II. Let the student take a few typical incidents which oceur
in all three Synoptists—I would suggest Mk. ii. 13-17 and
xi, 27-33 to begin with—and, having procured a Synopsis of the
Gospels, underline in red words found in all three, in blue words

adits THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 161

found in Mark and Matthew, in yellow words found in Mark
and Luke. If this is done throughout the Gospels it will appear
that a proportion varying from 30 % to over 60 % of the words
in Mark are underlined in red, while a large number of the
remainder are marked either blue or yellow. (What is still more
significant, if the collocation of words and the structure of
sentences in Matthew and Luke be examined, it will be found
that, while one or both of them are constantly in close agree-
ment with Mark, they never (except as stated p. 179 ff.) support
one another against Mark. This is clear evidence of the greater
originality of the Marcan version, and is exactly what we should
expect to find if Matthew and Luke were independently repro-
ducing Mark, adapting his language to their own individual style.]

III. The order of incidents in Mark is clearly the more
original ; for wherever Matthew departs from Mark’s order Luke
supports Mark, and whenever Luke departs from Mark, Matthew
agrees with Mark. The section Mk. iii. 31-35 alone occurs in a
different context in each gospel; and there is no case where
Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in a point of
arrangement.

A curious fact, of which an explanation is suggested later,
p. 274, is that, while in the latter half of his Gospel (chap. xiv.
to the end) Matthew adheres strictly to the order of Mark (Mk. vi.
14 to end), he makes considerable rearrangements in the first
half.2_ Luke, however, though he omits far more of Mark than

1 The happy possessor of W. G. Rushbrooke’s magnificent Synopticon will
find the work done for him by the use of different types and colours. Of
Greek Synopses on a smaller scale, the most conveniently arranged are
A. Huck’s Synopse (Mohr, Tiibingen) and Burton and Goodspeed’s Harmony
of the Synoptic Gospels (Universities of Chicago and Cambridge). For: those
who have little or no knowledge of Greek an admirably arranged Synopsis
based on the English of the Revised Version is The Synoptic Gospels by J. M.
Thompson (Clarendon Press).

2 A convenient chart showing Matthew’s rearrangements of Mark’s order is
given in the Commentary on Matthew by W. C. Allen in the “ International
Critical” series (T. & T. Clark, 1907), p. xiv. The discussion of the relation of
Matthew and Mark in this work, pp. i-xl, is the most valuable known to me: I
cannot, however, accept the theory of Matthew’s second main source, p. xli ff.

162 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

does Matthew, hardly ever departs from Mark’s order, and only
in trifling ways.! On the other hand, wherever Luke substitutes
for an item in Mark a parallel version from another source, he
always gives it im a different context from the item in Mark
which it replaces. This, as we shall see later, is a fact of very
great significance for the detezmination of the source of Luke’s
non-Marcan material.

We note, then, that in regard to (a) items of subject matter,
(Ὁ) actual words used, (c) relative order of sections, Mark is in
general supported by both Matthew and Luke, and in most cases
where they do not both support him they do so alternately,
and they practically never agree together against Mark. This
is only explicable if they followed an authority which in con-
tent, in wording, and in arrangement was all but identical
with Mark.

IV. A close study of the actual language of parallel passages
in the Gospels shows that there is a constant tendency in Matthew
and Luke—showing itself in minute alterations, sometimes by
one, sometimes by the other, and often by both—to improve
upon and refine Mark’s version. This confirms the conclusion,
to which the facts already mentioned point, that the Marcan
form is the more primitive. Of these small alterations many
have a reverential motive. Thus in Mark, Jesus is only once
addressed as ‘“‘ Lord” (κύριε), and that by one not a Jew (the
Syrophoenician). He is regularly saluted as Rabbi, or by its
Greek equivalent διδάσκαλε (Teacher). In Matthew κύριε
occurs 19 times; in Luke κύριε occurs 16, ἐπιστάτα (Master)
6 times. In the same spirit certain phrases which might cause
offence or suggest difficulties are toned down or excised. Thus
Mark’s “‘ he could do there no mighty work” (vi. 5) becomes in
Matthew (xiii. 58) “ he did not many mighty works”; while Luke
omits the limitation altogether. ‘‘ Why callest thou me good ?”’
(Mk. x. 18) reads in Matthew (xix. 17) “‘ Why askest thou me
concerning the good?”’ Much more frequently, however, the

1 These are enumerated and discussed in Oxford Studies, p. 88 ff.

CH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 163

changes merely result in stylistic or grammatical improvements,
without altering the sense.

But the difference between the style of Mark and of the
other two is not merely that they both write better Greek. It
is the difference which always exists between the spoken and
the written language. Mark reads like a shorthand account of
a story by an impromptu speaker—with all the repetitions,
redundancies, and digressions which are characteristic of living
speech. And it seems to me most probable that his Gospel,
like Paul’s. Epistles, was taken down from rapid dictation by
word of mouth. The Mark to whom tradition ascribes the
composition of the Gospel was a Jerusalem Jew, of the middle
class;1 he could speak Greek fluently, but writing in an
acquired language is another matter. Matthew and Luke
use the more succinct and carefully chosen language of one who
writes and then revises an article for publication. This partly
explains the tendency to abbreviate already spoken of, which is
especially noticeable in Matthew. Sometimes this leads to the
omission by one or both of the later writers of interesting and
picturesque details, such as “in the stern . . . on a cushion”’
(Mk. iv. 38), or “ they had not in the boat with them more than
one loaf” (Mk. viii. 14). Usually, however, it is only the
repetitions and redundancies so characteristic of Mark’s style
that are jettisoned. Sir John Hawkins? collects over 100
instances of “enlargements of the narrative, which add nothing
to the information conveyed by it, because they are expressed
again, or are directly involved in the context,” which he calls
“ context-supplements.” The majority of these are omitted by
Matthew, a large number by Luke also ; though Luke sometimes
omits where Matthew retains, as well as wee versa. Again,
Mark is very fond of “ duplicate expressions ”’ such as “‘ Evening
coming on, when the sun set” (i. 32). In these cases one or

1 His mother had a house large enough to be a meeting-place for the
church, and kept at least one slave girl (Acts xii. 12 f.), and his cousin
Barnabas had some property.

2 Hor, Syn,? p. 125.

164 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

other of the later Evangelists usually abbreviates by leaving out
one member of the pair; and not infrequently it happens that
Matthew retains one and Luke the other. Thus in the above
example Matthew writes “evening coming on,” Luke “ the sun
having set.”

Matthew and Luke regularly emend awkward or ungram-
matical sentences; sometimes they substitute the usual Greek
word for a Latinism; and there are two cases where they give
the literary equivalent of Greek words, which Phrynichus the
grammarian expressly tells us belonged to vulgar speech. Lastly,
there are eight instances in which Mark preserves the original
Aramaic words used by our Lord. Of these Luke has none,
while Matthew retains only one, the name Golgotha (xxvii. 33) ;
though he substitutes for the Marcan wording of the cry from the
Cross, “ Eloi, Eloi . . .” the Hebrew equivalent “Eli, Eli...”
as it reads in the Psalm (Mk. xv. 34 =Mt. xxvii. 46 =Ps. xxii. 1).

The examples adduced above are merely a sample given to
illustrate the general character of the argument. But it is an
argument essentially cumulative in character. Its full force
can only be realised by one who will take the trouble to go
carefully through the immense mass of details which Sir John
Hawkins has collected, analysed and tabulated, pp. 114-153
of his classic Horae Synopticae. How any one who has worked
through those pages with a Synopsis of the Greek text can
retain the slightest doubt of the original and primitive character
of Mark I am unable to comprehend. But since there are, from
time to time, ingenious persons who rush into print with theories
to the contrary, I can only suppose, either that they have not
been at the pains to do this, or else that—like some of the
highly cultivated people who think Bacon wrote Shakespeare,
or that the British are the Lost Ten Tribes—they have eccentric
views of what constitutes evidence.

VY. An examination of the way in which the Marcan and
non-Marcan material is distributed throughout the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke respectively is illuminating. The facts

OH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 165

seem only explicable on the theory that each author had before
him the Marcan material already embodied in one single docu-
ment ; and that, faced with the problem how to combine this
with material from other sources, each solved it in his own way
—the plan adopted by each of them being simple and straight-
forward, but quite different from that chosen by the other.

Certain elements in the non-Marcan matter clearly owe
their position in the Gospels to the nature of their contents.
For example, the two first chapters of Luke, with their account
of the Birth and Infancy of Christ, differ so much in style and
character from the rest of the Gospel that they are almost
certainly to be referred to a separate source, whether written
or oral we need not now discuss ; and the same remark applies
to the first two chapters of Matthew. Obviously, however,
these stories, whencesoever derived, could only stand at the
beginning of a Gospel. Similarly the additional details, which
Matthew and Luke give in their accounts of the Temptation
and the Passion, could only have been inserted at the beginning
and at the end of their Gospels. But the greater part of the
non-Marcan matter consists of parables or sayings which do
not obviously date themselves as belonging to any particular
time in the public ministry. It would appear that the Evangelists
had very little to guide them as to the exact historical occasion
to which any particular item should be assigned. That, at any
rate, seems to be the only explanation of the curious fact (to
which my attention was drawn by Sir John Hawkins) that,
subsequent to the Temptation story, there is not a single case in
which Matthew and Luke agree in inserting a piece of Q material
(the meaning of the symbol Q will appear later) into the same
context of Mark. The way, then, in which materials derived
from the Marcan and from non-Marcan sources are combined
must have been determined mainly by literary considerations,
and very little, if at all, by extrinsic historical information.

The student who wishes to get a thorough grasp of the facts
is advised to mark off in blue brackets—in a New Testament,

166 THE FOUR GOSPELS PY. It

not in a Synopsis of the Gospels—all passages of Matthew and
Luke which appear to be derived from Mark. For this purpose
the list of parallels in Additional Note B will be of assistance.
He will then see clearly the difference in the methods adopted
by Matthew and by Luke.

Matthew’s method is to make Mark the framework into
which non-Marcan matter is to be fitted, on the principle of
joining like to like. That is to say, whenever he finds
in a non-Marcan source teaching which would elaborate or
illustrate a saying or incident in Mark, he inserts that particular
piece of non-Marcan matter into that particular context in the
Marcan story. Sometimes he will insert a single non-Marcan
verse so aS most appropriately to illustrate a context of Mark,
e.g. the saying about faith (Mt. xvii. 20), or about the Apostles
sitting on twelve thrones (Mt. xix. 28). Sometimes he expands
a piece of teaching in Mark by the addition of a few verses from
another source on the same subject; e.g. the non-Marcan saying
on divorce, Mt. xix. 10-12, is appropriately fitted on to Marcan
discussions of the same theme. So the Marcan saying, repeated
in Mt. xix. 30, “ The first shall be last and the last first,” suggests
to him the addition in that particular context of the parable
of the Labourers in the Vineyard which points the same moral.
Similarly the moral of the Marcan parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen, Mt. xxi. 33 ff. (which is directed against the
Jewish authorities), is reinforced by the addition immediately
before and after it of the anti-Pharisaic parables of the Two
Sons and the Marriage Feast.

Examples of this kind of adaptation of non-Marcan matter
to a Marcan context could be indefinitely multiplied. But it
is worth while to call special attention to the bearing of this
process on the longer discourses in Matthew. All of them are
clear cases of “‘ agglomeration,” that is, of the building up of
sayings originally dispersed so as to form great blocks. Four
times, starting with a short discourse in Mark as a nucleus,
Matthew expands it by means of non-Marcan additions into a

cH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 167

long sermon. Thus the 7 verses of Mark’s sending out of the
Twelve (Mk. vi. 7 ff.) become the 42 verses of Mt. x. The
three parables of Mk. iv. are made the basis of the seven parable
chapter, Mt. xili—one only being different. The 12 verses,
Mk. ix. 33-37, 42-48, are elaborated into a discourse of 35 verses
in Mt. xviii. The “ Little Apocalypse ” (Mk. xiii.) is expanded,
not only by the addition of a number of apocalyptic sayings
(apparently from Q), but also by having appended to it three
parables of Judgement, Mt. xxv. To some extent analogous
is the way in which the Sermon on the Mount, far the longest
and most important block of non-Marcan matter, is connected
with the Marcan framework. It is inserted in such a way as
to lead up, and thus give point, to the Marcan saying, “ And
they were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as
one having authority, and not as the scribes.” Cf. Mk. 1. 22;
Mt. vii. 29. That the Sermon on the Mount is itself an agglomera-
tion of materials originally separate will be shown later (p. 249 ff.).

Luke’s method is quite different and much simpler. There
are half-a-dozen or so odd verses scattered up and down the
Gospel in regard to which it is disputable whether or not they
are derived from Mark. Apart from these, we find that, until
we reach the Last Supper (Lk. xxii. 14), Marcan and non-Marcan
material alternates in great blocks. The sections, Lk. 1. 1-ἰν. 30
(in the main) ; vi. 20-vili. 3; ix. 51-xviii. 14, and xix. 1-27 are
non-Marcan. The intervening sections, iv. 3l-vi. 19; vill. 4-ix.
50; xviii. 15-43; xix. 28-xxii. 13, are from Mark, with three
short interpolations from a non-Marcan source. From xxii.
14 onwards the sources, as is inevitable if two parallel accounts
of the Passion were to be combined, are more closely inter-
woven. This alternation suggests the inference that the non-
Marcan materials, though probably ultimately derived from more
than one source, had already been combined into a single
written document before they were used by the author of the
Third Gospel. The further inference that this combined non-
Marcan document was regarded by Luke as his main source and

168 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. II

supplied the framework into which he fitted extracts of Mark is
worked out in Chap. VIII. of this volume.

The net result of the facts and considerations briefly
summarised under the foregoing five heads is to set it beyond
dispute that Matthew and Luke made use of a source which in
content, in order, and in actual wording must have been
practically identical with Mark. Can we go a step farther and
say simply that their source was Mark ?

To the view that their common source was exactly identical
with our Mark there are two objections.

(1) If the common source used by Matthew and Luke was
identical with our Mark, why did they omit some whole sections
of their source ?

(2) How are we to account for certain minute agreements
of Matthew and Luke against Mark in passages which, but
for these, we should certainly suppose were derived from Mark ?

It has been suggested (a) that the omissions of material
found in Mark would be explicable on the theory that the
document used by Matthew and Luke did not contain the
omitted items—that it was an earlier form of Mark, or
“ Ur-Marcus,” of which our present Gospel is an expanded
version ; (b) that if the text of Ur-Marcus differed slightly from
that of Mark, the same theory would account for the minute
agreements of Matthew and Luke.

Clearly a decision as to the merits of an Ur-Marcus hypo-
thesis can only be made after a study of the actual passages
omitted by Matthew and Luke respectively, and a careful
scrutiny of the so-called “ Minor Agreements.’ But there is
one preliminary consideration which ought not to be overlooked.

In estimating the probability of Matthew or Luke pur-
posely omitting any whole section of their source, we should
remember that they did not regard themselves merely as scribes
(professedly reproducing exactly the MS. in front of them), but
as independent authors making use, like all historians, of earlier
authorities, and selecting from these what seemed to them to

cH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 169

be most important. Moreover, for practical reasons they
probably did not wish their work to exceed the compass of a
single papyrus roll. If so, space would be an object. As it is,
both Matthew and Luke would have needed rolls of fully thirty
feet long; and about twenty-five feet seems to have been
regarded as the convenient length. And, when compression
of some kind is necessary, slight reasons may decide in favour
of rejection. Very often we can surmise reasons of an apologetic
nature why the Evangelists may have thought some things less
worth while reporting. But, even when we can detect no
particular motive, we cannot assume that there was none; for
we cannot possibly know, either all the circumstances of churches,
or all the personal idiosyncrasies of writers so far removed from
our own time.

MartHEew’s Omissions

Matthew’s supposed omissions from Mark shrink on ex-
amination to very small dimensions. Matthew reproduces the
substance of all but 55 verses of Mark: of these 24 occur in
Luke, a fact which creates a strong presumption that these
at any rate were in the original source. But Mk. iv. 21-24, and
xiii. 33-37, which account for 9 of the 55 verses, are really cases,
not of omission, but of substitution; for in other contexts
Matthew has sayings equivalent to, and usually more elaborate
than, those which he here omits.” It is usually said that Matthew’s
omissions include three miracles of healing—a Demoniac
(Mk. i. 23 ff.), a Dumb man (vii. 32 ff.), and a Blind (viii. 22 ff.).
In the first of these the demon, as if by way of protest, “‘ rent ”’
the patient before coming out, and in the other two the cure is
a gradual process with the use of a medicament like spittle
instead of by a mere fiat. Such details obviously would make
these three healings less miraculous, less “evidential” of
supernatural power, and, therefore, from an apologetic point
of view, less worth recording, than others.

1 Cf. Oxford Studies, p. 25 ff. 2 See footnote, p. 196.

170 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

But is it correct to say that Matthew has “ omitted” these
three incidents? In his account of the Gadarene Demoniacs
(viii. 29) he modifies the words of the demoniac so as to combine
the cry, as given in his immediate source (Mk. v. 7), with that
of the demoniac as given in the apparently omitted section
(Mk. i. 24). This proves that Mk. i. 24 stood in the copy of
Mark he used. Moreover, Matthew makes the demoniacs two
in number, instead of one as in Mark. Taken together, these
phenomena suggest that Matthew considers himself to be, not
omitting one, but, as it were, telescoping two healings of
demoniacs which he found in Mark. Again, Mark’s cure of
the dumb man is not “ omitted,’ for Matthew substitutes in
the same context as Mark a general statement that Jesus healed
various sick persons, including dumb and blind, and calls atten-
tion to the impression produced on the multitude in words that
appear to be suggested by the omitted section in Mark (cf.
Mt. xv. 31=Mk. vii. 37). Also he inserts in another context
(Mt. ix. 32-33) a healing of a dumb man. Here we have an
example of the importance of textual criticism for the Synoptic
Problem ; verse 34, which says that Jesus was accused of healing
by the prince of devils, is omitted by D, a, k, Syr. 8. and
is a textual assimilation to the almost verbally identical
passage in Lk. xiv. 15; it is a ‘‘ Western non-interpolation ”
with more than ordinarily good MS. support. Read without
this verse, the story in Mt. ix. 32-33 looks like an abbreviated
version of Mk. vii. 32 ff. (with the “offending” details
excised), transferred after Matthew’s manner to another context.
In that case one would be inclined to think that Matthew
originally intended the healing of two blind men—which he
inserts immediately before this (Mt. ix. 27-31)—as another
telescoping of two Marcan miracles into one (ἰ.6. Mk. viii. 22 ff.
and Mk. x. 46 ff.), for the detail “ touched their eyes,” ix. 29,
may well have come from Mk. viii. 23, the other apparently
omitted miracle. When, however, in copying Mark he actually
reached the story of Bartimaeus, Mk. x. 46 ff., he preferred to

cH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 171

retell it in its original context, but forgot to delete it in the
earlier part of the Gospel.

The rebuke of John for forbidding those who cast out devils
in Christ’s name but do not follow with the disciples (Mk. ix. 38 ff.)
is a passage which would so readily lend itself to being quoted
in favour of the Gnostics who were already, when Matthew
wrote, beginning to demoralise the Church,! that its omission
can occasion no surprise. Again, the attempt of our Lord’s
relatives to arrest Him (Mk. iii. 21) and the incident of the young
man with a linen cloth in Gethsemane (xiv. 51 f.) are both cases
where it is harder to explain why Mark thought it worth while
to record than why Matthew (and Luke also) omitted. The
parable of the Seed growing secretly is also omitted by both
Matthew and Luke. In favour of its originality in the text
of Mark is the fact that, with the Mustard Seed, it forms one of
those pairs of twin parables illustrating different aspects of the
same idea which are a notable feature of the tradition of our
Lord’s teaching (cf. p. 189 f.). I think one must seriously con-
sider the possibility that this had accidentally dropped out of
the copy of Mark used by one or both of the other Evangelists
owing to “‘ homoioteleuton.” The eye of the scribe might very
easily pass from the first to the third of the three successive
paragraphs, each of which open with the words καὶ ἔλεγεν
(Mk. iv. 21, 26, 30). If there are 48 examples in the Gospels
of omission through homoioteleuton in x alone,” it would be odd
if there were none in the first copy of Mark which went to Antioch.
Or again, either Matthew or Luke may have omitted it because he
preferred to reproduce the Mustard Seed along with the Leaven
(its twin parable in Q), and having already a pair to illustrate
the idea of the Kingdom as a gradual growth, thought a third

1 Cf. Matthew’s significant addition to Mark, “By reason of the spread of
antinomianism (dvoula) the love of the many shall wax cold,” xxiv. 12.
N.B. also Matthew elsewhere records a condemnation of some who profess to
cast out devils in Christ’s name, Mt. vii. 22.

2 For the whole N.T. the number is 115. Cf. Scrivener’s collation of ἐξ,
p. Xv.

172 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

with the same moral superfluous. Since Matthew’s personal
predilections are all on the side of the more catastrophic
apocalyptic conception of the Kingdom; and since Luke, as
we shall see, inclines to prefer his non-Marcan source (which
gives the pair in another context), this may seem to some a
more probable explanation. But it is quite possible that the
omission of the parable by Matthew may be due to one of these
causes, and its omission by Luke to the other; both, at any
rate, are causes which we can verify as operating elsewhere.
In fact the only omission by Matthew for which it is hard
to find a satisfactory explanation is the story of the Widow’s
Mite, Mk. xii. 41-44. But here considerations of style almost
guarantee the section as original in Mark. In four verses we
find no less than four examples of the most characteristic features
of Mark’s style—a “context supplement,’ 1 a “duplicate
expression,” the idiom 6 ἐστι, and the Latinism κοδράντης---8}}
of which we may note Luke is careful to revise away.

Luxke’s GREAT OMISSION

It would seem, then, that there is no sufficient reason for
supposing that any substantial passage in our present text of
Mark was lacking in that known to Matthew. When. however,
we turn to Luke, the case is more debateable. Luke frequently
omits a section of Mark, but substitutes for it in a different con-
text another version of the same saying or incident—apparently
derived from the source which, as will appear in Chap. VIIL.,
he on the whole preferred to Mark. Obviously where this has
occurred, though we cannot prove that the omitted passages
stood in his copy of Mark, there is not a shadow of a reason for
supposing that they did not. The real problem arises from
Luke’s one “great omission” totalling some 74 consecutive
verses (Mk. vi. 45-viii. 26).2. Apart from this, his omissions are

1 On the significance of this and the following expression the student is

referred to Hawkins’ Hor. Syn. pp. 125, 139; cf. also pp. 34, 132.
2 Tf vii. 16 is genuine (om. B & L 28) the number is 75.

oH, VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 173

few, short, and easily accounted for. But the absence from
Luke of the equivalent of Mk. vi. 45-viii. 26 is, prima facie,
evidence that at any rate the greater part of this section was
absent from his copy of Mark, although it was indubitably
present in that used by Matthew.

Internal evidence also is, up to a point, favourable to the
theory that the section is δ' later insertion into the text of Mark,
provided we suppose the opening and concluding paragraphs of
it to be original. In Mk. vi. 45 Jesus sends the disciples on
ahead by boat to Bethsaida, while He Himself stays behind to
dismiss the crowd. He rejoins them, walking on the water
during the storm, vi. 51; but the arrival at Bethsaida, the
destination for which they set out, is not mentioned till viii. 22.
That is to say, the omission, not of the whole section omitted
by Luke, but of vi. 53-viii. 21, viz. all of it except the first and
last paragraphs, would make, superficially at any rate, a more
coherent story. Curiously enough, some critics who wish thus
to connect the start for and arrival at Bethsaida have failed to
notice that the Walking on the Water, which tells how Jesus
rejoined the disciples, is needed to make the narrative cohere.

On the hypothesis that the original Mark omitted, not the
whole section, but vi. 53-viii. 21, it could be argued that there
are three paragraphs in the inserted section which might very
plausibly be regarded as parallel versions or “doublets” of
matter occurring in the uninterpolated edition. These are (a)
the Feeding of the Four Thousand, viii. 1 ff., cf. Feeding of the
Five Thousand, vi. 30 ff.; (6) the gradual cure of a deaf man
by means of spittle, vii. 31 ff., cf. the similar use of spittle to
cure a blind man, viii. 22 ff.; (c) a voyage across the lake,
immediately following a feeding of a multitude, in which the
failure of the disciples to understand about the loaves is
specially emphasised, Mk. vi. 52, cf. viii. 17.

Further, if only the Walking on the Water and the gradual
Cure of the Blind Man, which are the first and last paragraphs of
the “ great omission,’ had stood in Luke’s copy of Mark, it

174 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. τί

would not be hard to explain his electing not to reproduce them.
The gradual cure by means of spittle may have seemed to him
a miracle lacking in impressiveness, while the story of the Walk-
ing on the Water might appear to play into the hands of the
Docetae, who asserted that Christ’s human body was a phantom,
and were already beginning to cause trouble in the Church before
the end of the first century.

Lastly, the retirement of Jesus into a mountain alone
after the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Jn. vi. 15, Mk. vi. 46-47)
and the Walking on the Water must have stood in the copy of
Mark used by John. For John’s version of this has (p. 410) con-
spicuous agreements with Mark against Matthew. Again, if, as
many think, the healing of a blind man with spittle, Jn. ix. 6-7,
implies a knowledge of the similar story, Mk. vii. 32-34, this too
must have stood in John’s copy of Mark. Thus, though John’s
copy cannot have lacked the whole of Luke’s “ great omission,”
it may have omitted all but the first and last paragraphs.

Nevertheless, to the attractive hypothesis that the original
Mark lacked the section vi. 53-vili. 21, there are two very
formidable objections.

(1) There are some remarkable facts to which attention was
first drawn by Sir John Hawkins.! By a careful tabulation of
minute linguistic peculiarities he has shown that in style and
vocabulary the section Mk. vi. 45-vili. 26 resembles Mark in no
less than eleven striking points in which Mark’s usage differs
conspicuously from that of Matthew and Luke, and, indeed,
from all other New Testament writers. In fact, the style and
vocabulary of this section are, if anything, more Marcan than
Mark. Sir John’s argument, being cumulative in character and
dependent on a statistical comparison of minute details, cannot
be summarised without weakening its force ; but to my mind it
is all but unanswerable.

(2) The difficulty in the way of supposing that the passage
was absent from the original text of Mark is enormously enhanced

1 Oxford Studies, p, 64 ff,

Sa νυ ρν.

oH, VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 175

by the fact that it was present in that used by Matthew. For,
once postulate two editions of Mark—a shorter edition known
to Luke and a later longer edition known to Matthew—and the
question of the lost end of the Gospel cannot be excluded from
consideration. It is incredible that the editor of a second
edition, whether it was Mark himself or some other, who was
prepared to take upon himself to add as much as a couple of
chapters in the middle, should have left the Gospel without an
end—supposing the first edition had already lost it. But if
the first edition had not already lost its end, how explain Luke’s
desertion of Mark’s narrative at Mk. xvi. 8, viz at the exact
point at which later on an accidental injury was to cause a
mutilation ? There are, moreover, further reasons (cf. p. 338 ff.)
for supposing that Matthew and Luke both used a text of
Mark which, like ours, ended at xvi. 8. It is very remarkable
that any edition should have circulated which broke off short
without giving an account of the Resurrection Appearances ;
but that a second and greatly enlarged edition should have
been published without an ending is quite incredible.

The precise weight to be attached to these two objections
will be estimated differently by different people. But at least
they are serious enough to compel us to ask whether Luke’s
“ great omission ”’
than the absence of this material from his source. Now it is
a fact that plausible reasons can be produced why most of the
contents of this particular section of Mark would not have
appealed to Luke. Motives which might have induced him to

can be explained by any other hypothesis

omit each separate item are put forward by Sir John Hawkins ; +
moreover, if, as I argue in Chap. VIII., Luke regarded Mark,
not as his main authority, but as a supplementary source,
the hypothesis of intentional omission cannot be ruled out.

My own mind has of late been attracted by a third
alternative, that Luke used a mutilated copy of Mark. The
case for this I state, but merely as a tentative suggestion.

1 Oxford Studies, p. 67 ff.

176 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 0

There are four features in Luke’s narrative which cry out for
an explanation. (1) Why does he place the Feeding of the
Five Thousand at a “ village called Bethsaida,” ix. 10, when
Mark, his source, expressly says that it was in a “ desert place ” ?
(2) Why does he omit the place-name Caesarea Philippi as the
scene of Peter’s Confession (ix. 18)? (3) Why does he say that
Jesus was “praying alone” on that occasion, while Mark
distinctly says that the incident occurred “in the way” ?
(4) How is the reading of B in Lk. ix. 18, which on transcriptional
grounds looks the more original, to be accounted for? B is
supported by 157 f. Goth. and three other cursives in reading
συνήντησαν (f. oceurrerunt) for cvvnoav—they met” for “they
were with.”

All these questions receive a completely satisfactory answer
if we suppose that Luke’s copy of Mark included merely the
beginning of the “‘ great omission,” as far as the words αὐτὸς μόνος
in vi. 47, and then went straight on to ἐπηρώτα τοὺς μαθητὰς,
viii. 27. Now, if a piece is torn out of the middle of a roll the
mutilation is not likely to begin and end exactly with a para-
graph which opens a new section ; an accidental loss is far more
likely to cut across the middle of a sentence at both ends. Let
us for the moment assume just such a mutilation. Luke’s MS.
of Mark would have run as follows (words in italics are specially
significant ; asterisks indicate where the break in the papyrus
occurred): ‘“‘ And straightway he constrained his disciples to
enter into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side
unto Bethsaida, while he himself sendeth the multitude away.
And after he had taken leave of them, he departed into the
mountain to pray. And when even was come, the boat was in
the midst of the sea, and he alone » αὶ » κα and in the way he
asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I
am ?” (Mk. vi. 45-47 . . . viii. 27b).

Granted such a text, what would Luke make of the story ?
What he actually does (in the B text) is to write, immediately

1 Reading κώμην for πόλιν with Ὁ 6, discussed in Appendix I.

oH, VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 177

after the account of the Feeding of the Multitude, ‘‘ And it came
to pass, as he was praying alone, the disciples met him: and he
asked them, saying, Who do the multitudes say that I am?”
And he inserts the place-name Bethsaida into the opening
sentence of the Feeding of the Multitude, though in other
respects he closely follows Mark’s version of the story. A study
of the passage shows that this procedure is of the most natural
and reasonable kind.

(1) From the mutilated text before him he might infer that
Bethsaida was only a short way off, so that the disciples would
be able to land and come back to meet our Lord by road, after
He had dismissed the multitude. It would follow that both
the Feeding of the Five Thousand and Peter’s Confession took
place near Bethsaida. That being so, if the story is to be clear
to the reader, the proper place to insert the name is obviously
before the Feeding of the Five Thousand, not in between the
two incidents. Luke, therefore, inserts the name Bethsaida in
the most appropriate place, ix. 10.

(2) Luke’s omission of the name Caesarea Philippi has been
quoted as evidence of his indifference to geographical detail.
But the whole case for this indifference rests on his supposed
omission of the geographical details contained in this section of
Mark. And if the mutilation in his MS. of Mark included the
half of verse vii. 27, then Bethsaida was the only place-name
he had in his source ; and he does the best he can with that.

(3) The incident of Jesus “ praying” and being “ alone ᾿ is
not an “ editorial addition ” directly contradicting Mark, but a
reproduction of what in Luke’s text of Mark was the immediate
introduction to Peter’s Confession.

(4) The reading of B (συνήντησαν }=occurrerunt =“ go to

1 Probably the original reading was #vrncoav=“ met.” συνῆσαν - ἡ were
with,” the reading of most MSS., is a very early scribe’s emendation. Someone
then tried to correct an ancestor of B by this text and wrote σὺν over the ἦν,
but the next copyist combined the two. A similar reading of B has been
pointed out by Prof. Burkitt. In Lk. xix. 37 D has πάντων (neut.), δὲ πασῶν
δυναμέων ; B (supported curiously enough by 579) has πάντων δυναμέων, a false
concord explicable if πάντων was original, δυναμέων an addition from the margin.

178 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 0

meet ᾽) is, as so often, shown to be original. It translates Mark’s
ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ in the only meaning that could be given to it, if it
followed just after Mk. vi. 47.

If Luke wrote at some distance from Rome, no difficulty is
presented by the hypothesis that the only copy of Mark which
had reached him was a mutilated one. Speculation, however,
as to how the mutilation occurred is not very profitable. A
papyrus roll was a very fragile thing, and the number of
accidents that could happen to it was very large. All I submit
is that, in view of such a possibility and of the difficulties of
supposing the section was not in the original copy of Mark, its
absence from Luke constitutes quite insufficient ground for
postulating an Ur-Marcus.

But if the theory of an older and shorter edition of Mark
is not needed to explain Luke’s Great Omission, it is certainly
not called for to explain his shorter omissions. Several of them
only amount to one or two verses, and there are obvious
reasons why Luke should have left out the others. Three
passages, for instance (ix. 28-29, x. 35-41, xiv. 26-28), reflect
some discredit on the Apostles, and Luke always “ spares the
Twelve ’—omitting the rebuke “ Retro Satanas ” (Mk. ix. 33), and
excusing the slumber in Gethsemane as due to sorrow (Lk. xxii.
45), and only recording one of the three lapses. The dancing of
Salome (Mk. vi. 17-29) has little value for edification. The pith
of the long discussion on Divorce (x. 1-12) is given in the last
two verses, for which Luke has an equivalent in another con-
text (Lk. xvi. 18). The Cursing of the Fig Tree (xi. 12-14,
20-22) might seem a harsh act for the Great Healer; besides,
Luke has the parable of the Fig Tree (Lk. xiii. 6 ff.), which
may be the origin of the story, and at any rate contains all the
moral that can be drawn from it. Mark ix. 43-47 may already,

for all we know, have been seized upon by certain over-zealous

believers as an exhortation to self-mutilation of the kind which
others justified from Mt. xix. 12. Finally, some of the omitted
passages must have stood in Luke’s copy of Mark, for Luke

oa. vii THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 179

reproduces some verses which im Mark are intimately connected
with others which he omits. Thus Lk. ix. 36 is an abbreviation
of Mk. ix. 9, but in Mark this verse forms the introduction to
the four verses that follow.

These facts must be considered in the light of the evidence
to be submitted in the next chapter that Luke regarded his
non-Marcan source as primary, and conceived himself as pro-
ducing a new and enlarged edition of that work, incorporating
what seemed most important in Mark. In that case passages
of Mark not included in Luke must be regarded, not so much
as ‘‘omissions”’ as “ non-insertions,” and the absence of any
particular passage from Luke creates no presumption that it
was absent from the copy of Mark which he used.

Minor AGREEMENTS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE

Accordingly it is clear that the only real difficulty in accepting
out of hand the conclusion that the document used by Matthew
and Luke was identical with Mark lies in the occurrence of
agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark consisting
either in minor omissions or in some minute alterations in a
turn of expression. A full discussion of this subject is attempted
in Chap. XI. But for the benefit of the reader who is not
conversant with the Greek language, I will briefly sum up the
conclusions there reached. (1) Such agreements are only
significant in contexts where there is no reason to suppose that
the passage also stood in Q. (2) Most commonly these agree-
ments result from Matthew and Luke changing a historic
present in Mark into an imperfect or aorist tense, in their sub-
stituting a participle for a finite verb with “and,” or in using
a different conjunction or preposition from Mark. In every
instance the change is, from the stylistic or grammatical point
of view, an improvement. And as both Matthew and Luke
continually make this kind of improvement independently, it
is not surprising that both sometimes concur in doing so in the

180 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

same place. (3) If the agreement consists in an omission it is
almost invariably of the unnecessary or unimportant words
which are characteristic of Mark’s somewhat verbose style.
Matthew and Luke both compress Mark; it would be hard
to find three consecutive verses in the whole of his Gospel of
which either Matthew or Luke have not omitted some words,
apparently with this object. Since, then, both Matthew and
Luke independently compress Mark by the omission of un-
necessary words or sentences, and since in any sentence only
certain words can be spared, they could not avoid frequently
concurring in the selection of words to be dispensed with.
Under such circumstances, coincidence in omission calls for no
explanation.

There are, however, three instances where the agreement
of Matthew and Luke against Mark amounts to five consecutive
words ; and there are perhaps thirty of an agreement in one or
two words. These agreements are all of a kind which, if there
were fewer of them, could easily be attributed to accidental
coincidence. But there are just too many of them to make
this at all a plausible explanation.

But though some explanation is required, a study of the
phenomena reveals the fact that the hypothesis of an Ur-Marcus
is of no service to us whatever for that purpose. The essential
point that emerges is that in the great majority of cases where
Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, the existing text of Mark
seems the more primitwe and original. If, then, the document
used by Matthew and Luke was not identical with our Mark,
so far from being an earlier form of Mark, it must have been
a later and more polished recension, all copies of which have
since disappeared. This is the explanation of the phenomena
which was adopted by Dr. Sanday in the Ozford Studies (pp. 21 ff.)
and is, I believe, accepted by the majority of authorities as
the most probable. It involves no a priori difficulties. There
would have been several copies of Mark at Rome at a very early
date; and it is quite likely that one copyist would have felt

CH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 181

free to emend the style a little. From this copy those used by
Matthew and Luke may have been made, while the unrevised
copies, being in the majority, may yet have determined the text
that has come down to us.

Personally, however, I am inclined to seek a different
explanation of that residue of the agreements between Matthew
and Luke which cannot naturally be ascribed to occasional
coincidence in the type of improvement in Mark which they
constantly make independently. The Synopses of the Gospels
in Greek most widely used by scholars give the text either of
Tischendorf or of Westcott and Hort which are based on the text
of Alexandria as preserved in By. But in nearly every case
where a minute agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark is
found in Β » it is absent in one or more of the other early local
texts; though, on the other hand, these other texts frequently
show such agreements in passages where they do not occur in B,
while quite a different set of agreements is found in MSS. which
give the Byzantine text. Indeed, even as between x and B
there is a difference in this respect; there are agreements of
Matthew and Luke against Mark in the B text which are not
ink, and vice versa. A careful study of the MS. evidence distinctly
favours the view that all those minute agreements of Matthew
and Luke against Mark, which cannot be attributed to coincidence,
were absent from the original text of the Gospels, but have crept
in later as a result of “‘ assimilation” between the texts of the
different Gospels. Detailed evidence for this conclusion is sub-
mitted in Chapter XI.; and, if it is correct, the one objection
to the view that the document used by Matthew and Luke was
identically our Mark completely disappears. If, however, that
evidence be deemed inconclusive, then Dr. Sanday’s hypothesis
best explains the facts. But in any case, as I have already
urged, they offer no support to the hypothesis of an Ur-Marcus.

182 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. τι

THE DocumENT Q

Although Matthew embodies about eleven-twelfths of Mark
he compresses so much that the Marcan material only amounts
to about half of the total contents of his Gospel. It is remark-
able that the additional matter consists preponderantly of
parable and discourse.1 Of Luke rather less than one-third
appears to be derived from Mark, though owing to the greater
length of his Gospel—1149 verses as compared with 661—and
to some compression of Mark’s style, this one-third of Luke
includes the substance of slightly more than half of Mark.
Luke’s additional matter includes both more narrative and
more parables than Matthew’s, but not quite as much discourse.
The discourse occurs in shorter sections, and is not to the same
extent as in Matthew collected into large blocks.

We notice that, of this large mass of material which must
have been derived from elsewhere than Mark, a certain amount,
approximately 200 verses, appears in both Matthew and Luke.
This matter, which they have in common, includes most of John
the Baptist’s Preaching, the details of the Temptation, the
Sermon on the Mount, the Healing of the Centurion’s Servant,
John’s Message, “ Art thou he that should come,” “ Be not
’ and many more of the most notable
sayings in the Gospels. But there are two facts of a puzzling
nature. (1) The common material occurs in quite different con-
texts and is arranged (cf. p. 273 ff.) in a different order in the two
Gospels. (2) The degree of resemblance between the parallel
passages varies considerably. For example, the two versions of
John the Baptist’s denunciation, ‘Generation of vipers . .

anxious for the morrow,’

”

1 Narratives peculiar to Matthew, apart from generalised statements of
healing like xv. 30 and xxi. 14, are as follows: the Infancy, i.-ii.; Peter
walking on the water, xiv. 28 ff.; the coin in the fish’s mouth, xvii. 24 ff. ;
various small additions to Mark’s story of the Passion (i.e. xxvi. 52-54;
xxvii. 3-10, 19, 24-25, 51b-53, 62-66); the Resurrection Appearances, The two
miracles, ix. 27-34, are possibly intended to be the same as two recorded by
Mark, which otherwise Matthew has omitted. Cf. p. 170.

CH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 183

(Mt. iii. 7-10=Lk. i. 7-9), agree in 97 °% of the words used ;
but the two versions of the Beatitudes present contrasts as
striking as their resemblances.

How are we to account for this common matter? The
obvious suggestion that Luke knew Matthew’s Gospel (or vice
versa) and derived from it some of his materials breaks down
for two reasons.

(1) Sir John Hawkins once showed me a Greek Testament
in which he had indicated on the left-hand margin of Mark
the exact point in the Marcan outline at which Matthew has
inserted each of the sayings in question, with, of course, the
reference to chapter and verse, to identify it ; on the right-hand
margin he had similarly indicated the point where Luke inserts
matter also found in Matthew. It then appeared that, sub-
sequent to the Temptation story, there is not a single case in
which Matthew and Luke agree in inserting the same saying
at the same point in the Marcan outline. If then Luke derived
this material from Matthew, he must have gone through both
Matthew and Mark so as to discriminate with meticulous
precision between Marcan and non-Marcan material; he must
then have proceeded with the utmost care to tear every little
piece of non-Marcan material he desired to use from the context
of Mark in which it appeared in Matthew—in spite of the fact
that contexts in Matthew are always exceedingly appropriate
—in order to re-insert it into a different context of Mark having
no special appropriateness. A theory which would make an
author capable of such a proceeding would only be tenable if,
on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank.

(2) Sometimes it is Matthew, sometimes it is Luke, who
gives a saying in what is clearly the more original form. This
is explicable if both are drawing from the same source, each
making slight modifications of his own; it is not so if either
is dependent on the other.

A second explanation of the phenomena that has been
suggested is that Matthew and Luke had access (in addition

184 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

to the written Gospel of Mark) to different cycles of oral tradition,
or to documents embodying such, and that these cycles, though
in the main independent, overlapped to some extent. For
those cases where the degree of verbal resemblance between
the parallel passages is small I myself believe that some such
explanation is a true one. For the more numerous examples
where the verbal resemblances are close and striking it is far
from convincing.

Accordingly a third hypothesis, that Matthew and Luke
made use of a single common document that has since dis-
appeared, has secured, if not quite universal, at any rate an
all but universal, assent from New Testament scholars. This
hypothetical source is now by general consent referred to as
“ Q,” though in older books it is spoken of as “‘ the Logia ” or
“the Double Tradition.” Seeing that Q, if such a document
ever existed, has disappeared, the hypothesis that it was used
by Matthew and Luke cannot be checked and verified as can
the hypothesis that they used Mark. But it explains facts for
which some explanation is necessary, and it has commended
itself to most of those, who have studied the subject minutely
in all its bearings, as explaining them in a simpler and more
satisfactory way than any alternative suggestion which has so
far been put forward. We are justified, then, in assuming the
existence of Q, so long as we remember that the assumption is
one which, though highly probable, falls just short of certainty.

But it does not follow, because we accept the view that Q
existed, that we can discover exactly which passages in Matthew
and Luke were, and which were not, derived from it. Nearly
all writers on the Synoptic Problem have attempted to do this.
I have done so myself. But, for reasons which will be developed
in Chap. IX., I now feel that most of these attempts to reconstruct
Q have set out from false premises. (1) Critics have under-

1 Oxford Studies, Essay VI. On the hazards of reconstructing Q there are
some valuable warnings in Burkitt’s review of Harnack’s attempt, J.7'.S.,
Ap. 1907, p. 454 ff. I cannot, however, accept his own suggestion that Q
contained an account of the Passion.

cH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 185

estimated the probability that in many cases slightly differing
versions of the same sayings or parables would be in circulation.
They have therefore been unduly anxious to extend the bound-
aries of Q by including passages, like the Lord’s Prayer and
the parable of the Lost Sheep, where the parallelism between
Matthew and Luke is not exact enough to make derivation
from a common written source its most likely explanation.
Even if items like these stood in Q, it is probable that one or
other of the Evangelists also had before him another version
as well. Further study of the facts convinces me that a sub-
stantial proportion of the 200 verses in question were probably
derived from some other source than Q. (2) On the other hand,
since Matthew and Luke would presumably have treated Q
much in the same way as they treated Mark, it is fairly certain
that some passages which are preserved by Matthew only or
by Luke only are from Ὁ ; but I feel less confidence than hereto-
fore in the validity of some of the principles by which it has been
sought to identify them. (3) Not enough allowance has been made
for the extent to which sayings of a proverbial form circulate
in any community. One such, “It is more blessed to give
than to receive,” which does not appear in any of the Gospels,
is quoted by Paul (Acts xx. 35). At the present day, at the
Bar, in the Medical Profession, in every College in Oxford or
Cambridge, professional maxims, or anecdotes and epigrams
connected with names well known in the particular society, are
handed down by word of mouth. The same thing must have
happened in the early Church ; and it does not at all follow that
a saying of this character, even if it occurs in almost identically
the same form in two Gospels, was derived from a written
source. Where, however, a number of consecutive sayings
occur in two Gospels with approximately the same wording, or
where a detached saying is not of a quasi-proverbial character,
a documentary source is more probable. Hence, while the
phenomena make the hypothesis of the existence of.a written
source Q practically certain, its exact delimitation is a matter

ΕΣ

186 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

of a far more speculative character. A tentative reconstruction
is essayed in Chap. X.

THE OVERLAPPING OF Q AND Mark

But although it is impossible to determine exactly what
was and what was not contained in Q, one fact cannot be dis-
puted—there is a certain amount of overlapping between Q and
Mark. This observation holds good in principle even if we
think (with Prof. E. de W. Burton 1) that the “Ὁ material” was
derived, not from a single document, but from two, or (like the
late Mr. A. Wright) that it represents a cycle of tradition and was
not derived from a document at all. In other words, whatever
the theory we accept as to the character of the source or sources
of the non-Marcan matter common to Matthew and Luke, it
is clear that certain items were known to Matthew and Luke
both in Mark’s version and also in another decidedly different.
In fact, to put it paradoxically, the overlapping of Mark and
Q is more certain than is the existence of Q.

The student will find convincing proof of this, if, in his
Synopsis of the Gospels, he will underline in red words found
in all three Gospels, in blue those found in Mark and Matthew,
in purple those in Mark and Luke, and, say, in yellow words
found only in Matthew and Luke, in the accounts of John the
Baptist’s Preaching, the Baptism and Temptation, the Beelzebub
Controversy, the parables of the Mustard Seed and Leaven, and
the Mission Charge (Mk. vi. 7-11, cf. Mt. x. 1-16a=Lk. x. 1-12).
The phenomena revealed are only explicable on the theory that
Matthew and Luke had before them a version of these items
considerably longer’ than that of Mark. And it will be noticed
that, while Matthew carefully combines the two versions, Luke
prefers the non-Marcan, introducing at most a few touches
from that of Mark.

1 Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic Problem, p. 41 ff. (Chicago,
1904).

— 2

cH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 187

This overlapping of Mark and Q, found in the above sections
and in a few other short sayings, covers about 50 verses of Mark.!
And, wherever it occurs, we find that Luke tends to preserve
the Q version unmixed, while Matthew combines it with that
of Mark. This, indeed, only means that Matthew and Luke
differ in their treatment of Q in precisely the same way as in
their treatment of Mark—in both cases Matthew conflates his
sources, Luke alternates them. This difference, of which we
shall see many examples, affords a valuable principle for
distinguishing the Marcan and the Q versions in doubtful
cases.

Many critics explain this overlapping of Q and Mark on
the theory that Mark knew and made extracts from 9. In
favour of this view there is the fact that in many cases where
Mark and Q overlap the Q version is longer and also looks the
more original. In fact, as I put it in an Essay in the Ozford
Studies, the Marcan often looks like a “ mutilated excerpt”
from the Q version.* In that case the first difficulty would be
to explain the very small amount of matter (not more than
50 verses) which Mark derives from Q. The suggestion I then
made was that Mark wrote for a Church in which Q was already
in circulation, and intended to supplement rather than to super-
sede Q, and he therefore only drew from it some brief allusions
to certain outstanding points which could not be altogether
passed over in a life of Christ. But the net result of the
discussion of the question among scholars during the last thirteen
years has been to add weight to, rather than to detract from,
the difficulty I even then expressed of supposing that Q lay
before Mark in a written form.

In Mark’s account of the Temptation there is no mention
of the fast. Indeed, if we did not unwittingly read into Mark’s

1 Most of the relevant passages are printed in parallel columns and dis-
cussed in my essay in Oxford Studies, p. 167 ff. There is a valuable discussion
in Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, p. 234 ff. (C. 8. Patton, Macmillan Co., New
York, 1915).

3 Ozford Studies, p. 171.

188 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 1

account what is so familiar to us from the other two Gospels,
we should naturally interpret the imperfect tense of the verb
in the phrase “ the angels ministered to him” as meaning that
Jesus was continuously fed by angels, as once Elijah was by
ravens. Again, while in Matthew and Luke the emphasis is
on the internal content of the various temptations of our Lord
to a misuse of His lately realised Messianic powers, in Mark it is
on the external fact that “‘ he was with the wild beasts,’ which
is not even mentioned in the other accounts. Mark’s repre-
sentation of this incident is so wholly different from that in Q
that, if we were compelled to assume that he could have derived
it from no other source, we must say that he had read Q long
enough ago to have had time to forget it.

John’s Preaching, the Baptism, and the Temptation obviously
form a single section, and a source which contains the first and
third must have contained the second, which not only connects
the other two but is the point round which they hinge. Q, there-
fore, must have contained an account of the Baptism. But
whereas in Mark’s version the voice from heaven is “‘ Thou art
my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased,” in Q it must have
read, “ Thou art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten
thee’ ; which is the reading of the Western text of Luke, and
is undoubtedly right. As has been already pointed out (p. 143),
it can be traced back to Justin Martyr ; and since it is a reading
which not only introduces a discrepancy between the Gospels but
also seems to favour what was later regarded as the dangerous
heresy that Jesus only became Son of God at His Baptism, its
“correction” in the Alexandrian MSS. is easy to explain. But
if Luke wrote this, and that with Mark in front of him, it must
have been because it stood in his other source.

Again, the picturesque details which Mark (i. 6) gives as to
John’s dress and food look authentic, but there is no reason to
suppose they stood in Q. Here, and indeed wherever Mark
and Q overlap, Matthew conflates the two versions ; Luke prefers
that of Q. But if we take Luke as on the whole representing Q,

cH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 189

and consider the section John’s Preaching, Baptism and Tempta-
tion as a whole, the differences between his version and Mark
are far more striking than the resemblances. It is only the fact
that Matthew combines the two versions, and most people read
Matthew first, that has concealed the extent of the contrast so
long even from students.

The case for regarding Mark’s version of the Beelzebub
Controversy as an extract from Q is stronger. But, again, if we
realise that Matthew’s version is partly derived from Mark, and
therefore take Luke’s version as on the whole nearer to Q, the
verbal resemblances between the two accounts are no more than
would be inevitable if they represent two quite independent
traditions of the same original incident and discourse. In this
case, however, part of the argument that Mark derives from Q
depends on the suggestion that the way in which the section
appears in Mark is such that it looks as if it were an interpolation.
But this contention disappears on closer investigation. The
removal of Mk. iu. 22-30 does not leave the smooth connection
we should expect if it was really an interpolation. On the
other hand, if the words “they said”’ in Mk. iii. 21 are inter-
preted as meaning “ people were saying,”
reads, not like an interpolation, but as a digression intended
to explain their action. ‘‘ They did so, for report said He was
mad, and the scribes had gone so far as to say He was Beelzebub,
but He made short work of them.”’ Mark’s phrase is ambiguous
and not very good Greek, and, as usually happens with imperfectly
educated writers, the digression is clumsily introduced. But it
is more likely that our Lord’s relatives should have come to
apprehend Him, because they had heard a report that He was
beside Himself, than that they should have arrived at such a
conclusion for themselves. And it is by no means likely that
Mark would have told the story at all, if he had meant what
he is usually understood to mean.

on disart, the section

In all our sources we find the phenomenon of twin-parables !
1 Oxford Studies, p. 173.

190 THE FOUR GOSPELS pT. I

illustrating different aspects of the same idea—the Hidden .
Treasure and the Pearl of Great Price (Mt. xii. 44-46), the Tower
Builder and King making War (Lk. xiv. 28-32), the New Patch
and the New Wine (Mk. ii. 21-22), the Lost Sheep and the Lost
Coin (Lk. xv. 3-10). In the Oxford Studies I argued that the
Mustard Seed in Mark was the mutilated half of the Mustard
Seed and Leaven, which since they stand together in both
Matthew and Luke must have formed such a twin pair in Q.
But Mr. E. R. Buckley 1 acutely points out that in Mark the
Mustard Seed does not stand alone ; it is paired with the parable
of the Seed growing secretly, which is quite as appropriate a
twin as the Leaven to illustrate the idea of the gradual growth
of the Kingdom. It would seem, then, that the twin-parable
argument really cuts the other way, and suggests that in Mark
and Q we have two pairs which have descended along quite
independent lines of tradition.

Mt. x. 5-16 is clearly a conflation of the Q discourse, given
by Luke as the Charge to the Seventy (Lk. x. 1-12), with Mark’s
discourse on the Mission of the Twelve (Mk. vi. 7-11). Matthew
has additional matter both at the beginning and the end which
may possibly come from a third source (cf. p. 255), but in the
central part of his version of the discourse (Mt. x. 9-16a) there
is hardly a word which is not to be found either in Mk. vi.
7-11 or in Lk. x. 1-12. The five words, on the other hand,
common to Mk. vi. 7-11 and Lk. x. 1-12 (I do not count
καί, av and μή, the definite article and personal pronouns,
which for this purpose are not significant), ‘‘ wallet,” “ enter,”

7) 66

** house, remain,” “feet,” are such as must occur in any
version of this discourse. Assuming, then, that Luke x. 1-12
(not being conflate with Mark) represents Q, the differences
between Mark and Luke are so great and the resemblances so
few that they favour the view that Mark’s version is independent,
not derived from Q. If Mark did use Q, he must have trusted

entirely to memory and never once referred to the written source.

1 Introduction to the Synoptic Problem, Ὁ. 147 (Arnold, 1912).

cH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 191

There remain no other considerable passages where Mark
and Q are parallel; for only portions of Mk. iv. 21-25 and
Mk. ix. 42-50 have their equivalents in Q, and that in scattered
contexts. The rest are all quite short, consisting of one or two
verses. Mostly they belong to the class of proverb-like saying
which, as has been argued above (p. 185), would be likely to be
circulated in different forms by word of mouth. To the critic
perhaps the most interesting examples are Mk. viii. 34, cf.
Mt. x. 38=-Lk. xiv. 27, “take up the cross,” and Mk. vit. 38,
ef. Mt. x. 33=Lk. xii. 9, “denies me on earth.” A glance at
the Synopsis will show that Matthew and Luke give these sayings
twice over—once in the context parallel to Mark and in a version
very close to Mark’s, and again in the quite different contexts
to which the references are given above, but ina version much
‘less close to Mark’s. This shows beyond doubt that Matthew
and Luke had versions of the sayings in two distinct sources.
The two versions differ to an extent which makes it improb-
able that Mark’s was derived from Q, unless his dependence on
Q is held to be already securely established on other grounds.

On the whole, then, the evidence is decidedly against the
view that Mark used Q. In that case the general, though not
invariable, superiority of the Q version remains to be accounted
for. This can only be done if we suppose that Q was a docu-
ment of very early date and represents a peculiarly authentic
tradition.

A Mopern ILLUSTRATION

Small things that fall within our own experience may often
illuminate great things known to us only through books. Says
Gibbon, speaking of the insight into military system which he

1 Prof. C. H. Dodd points out to me that in three cases (Mk. iii. 28,
iv. 22, vi. 8) the variations between the Marcan and the Q versions might
be explained as divergent translations of Aramaic: iii. 28 xv’) 2 singular or
collective; iv. 22 Ἴ-ε ἵνα or ὃ; vi. 8, where wb for κὸν would give μὴ ῥαβδόν
instead of εἰ μὴ ῥαβδόν.

192 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. Π'

gained from the peaceful manceuvres of his county militia :
“The captain of the Hampshire grenadiers (the reader may
smile) has not been useless to the historian of the Roman
Empire.” In a similar spirit it may be worth. while to quote
an experience of my own, which shows the psychological working
out in practice of “conflation,” “agglomeration,” and other
kinds of “ editorial modification.” A prolonged study of ancient
documents compels the professional critic to assume such
processes, but to the plain man the hypothesis often seems
over-ingenious, unverifiable, and unreal.

In 1920 I undertook, in collaboration with a friend, to
prepare for publication a sketch of the personality and teaching
of Sadhu Sundar Singh,t commonly known as “the Indian
St. Francis.” The Sadhu had left England, and any extensive
correspondence with him seemed impracticable. Hence we had
to rely upon a collection of printed and manuscript material,
and on the recollections of our own personal intercourse with
him and that of some other friends. That is to say, we were
dependent on written documents supplemented by a certain
amount of “ oral tradition.”

Our materials included two brief “lives” written in India,
which to some extent overlapped. We had also three different
collections of addresses, given by him in India, Ceylon, and
Great Britain respectively, and various newspaper reports.
Seeing that the Sadhu is in the habit of freely repeating the
same story or parable on different occasions, the phenomenon
of parallel versions of the same material frequently occurred.
Thus the problem we had to solve was essentially that of com-
bining into a single whole materials derived from a number of
disconnected, independent, but to a large extent overlapping,
sources. It was not, however, till the book was in proof that
I realised that circumstances had forced us to devise ways of
dealing with our materials having the closest analogy to those

1 The Sadhu: A Study in Mysticism and Practical Religion, by B. H.
Streeter and A. J. Appasamy (Macmillan, 1921).

SS ΝΝΝνδι ὰύ".. ."

CH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 193

which criticism suggests were habitually employed by editors
in antiquity.

(1) Our first step was to single out the central ideas and
leading topics to which the Sadhu most frequently recurred ;
our next, to sort out roughly the materials from various sources
under headings corresponding to these main ideas. Then we
carefully rearranged and fitted together the sayings and parables
collected under each several head in such a way as to present,
in the Sadhu’s own words, a coherent, connected, and as far as
possible complete, account of his teaching on that particular topic.
Thus almost every discourse in the book is an “ agglomeration,”
containing material drawn from two or three different sources.

(2) The frequent occurrence in our sources of two and some-
times three versions of the same story or saying presented us
with a problem we could not avoid facing. The solution that
seemed obvious was to select what seemed the freshest and most
original version. But wherever an otherwise inferior version
contained a detail or a phrase which, from our knowledge of
Indian conditions or our interpretation of the character and
philosophy of the man, seemed to us specially interesting or
authentic, we worked this detail or phrase into the substance
of the selected version. In other words, we “ conflated ”’ two,
and occasionally even three, parallel accounts.

(3) For a variety of reasons, one of which was the desire
not to swell the size of the book in view of the high cost of
production, we decided not to reproduce the whole of our
materials. Inevitably, in considering what to jettison, we were
guided by our own feeling, or by the opinion of friends, as to
which sections were the less interesting, valuable, or character-
istic, and decided to omit these.

(4) Since the Sadhu’s knowledge of English was limited, we
considered ourselves free to amend the grammar and style wher-
ever it seemed desirable, so long as we did not alter the sense.

Modern devices like an introduction, footnotes, and inverted
commas enabled us to take our readers into our confidence as

194 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. Π

to our method, and to give references to original sources where
anything depended on it. An ancient author was not expected
to do this, and for purely mechanical reasons it would have been
impossibly cumbrous with the ancient form of book. But the
point I wish to bring out is how a personal experience has caused
me to realise that—given a multiplicity of sources—some such
editorial methods are forced upon an author who wishes to
present the reader with a biographical portrait rather than a
chaotic mass of disconnected obzter dicta.

To hint at a comparison, though it be only in regard to the
mere mechanism of editing, between a work of one’s own and
a book of the Bible will seem, I fear, to some readers, to border
on indecency. I conceive, however, that it is worth while to
incur the risk of such a criticism in order to be able more firmly
to substantiate a proposition on which 1 laid some stress in the
Oxford Studies. It is really important for the ordinary man
to realise that the use by the authors of our Gospels of editorial
methods like “‘ conflation ” and “‘ agglomeration ”’ of sources does
not necessarily impair, indeed under the circumstances it may
well have been the best way to secure, an effective presentation
of the total impression of our Lord’s teaching. On this subject
I venture to repeat some words I wrote thirteen years ago.!

“Tnsomuch as the loss of a single syllable which might
throw a ray of light on any act or word of our Lord is to be
regretted, we must regret that Q, and possibly some other early
writings used by Matthew and Luke, have not been preserved
unaltered and entire. Yet perhaps the loss is less than we may
think. Who does not feel that St. Mark, the oldest of the
Gospels we still have, is the one we could best spare? Without
him we should miss the exacter details of a scene or two, a touch
or two of human limitations in the Master, or of human infirmity
in the Twelve, but it is not from him that we get the portrait
of the Master which has been the inspiration of Christendom.
A mechanical snapshot is for the realist a more reliable and

τ Oxford Studies, p, 226.

oH. VII THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION 195

correct copy of the original than a portrait by Rembrandt, but
it cannot give the same impression of the personality behind.
The presence of a great man, the magic of his voice, the march
of his argument, have a mesmeric influence on those who hear,
which is lost in the bare transcript of fragmentary sayings and
isolated acts such as we find in Mark or Q. Later on, two
great, though perhaps unconscious, artists, trained in the move-
ment begun. by the Master and saturated by His Spirit, retell
the tale, idealise—if you will—the picture, but in so doing
make us to realise something of the majesty and tenderness
which men knew in Galilee.

“An instance will make this clear. The realist may object
that the Sermon on the Mount is not the sermon there delivered,
but a mosaic of the more striking fragments of perhaps twenty
discourses, and may approve rather of St. Mark or Q because
there we have the fragments frankly as fragments. But on the
hill or by the lake they were not listened to as scattered frag-
ments but in the illuminating context, and behind the words
was ever the speaker’s presence. ‘The multitude marvelled as
they heard,’ says Mark in passages where fis story leaves ud
cold. We turn to the arresting cadence of the Sermon on the
Mount and it is no longer the multitude but we that marvel.”

ADDITIONAL NOTES
(A) Omessions from Mark

(N.B.—These lists do not include odd verses which add
nothing material to the sense.)

(a) The passages of Mark which are absent from both Matthew
and Luke are :—i. 1; ii. 27; iii. 20-21; iv. 26-29; vii. 3-4;
vii. 32-37; viii. 22-26 ; ix. 29; ix. 48-49 ; xiii. 33-372; xiv. 51-52 ;
total, 31 verses.

1 The lists of passages here given differ occasionally from the similar lists
in my article on the Synoptic Problem in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible.
2 But Matthew has similar matter, Mt. xxiv. 42, xxv. 13-15; cf. also

xii. 38-40, xix. 12.

196 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 0

(Ὁ) The passages of Mark which are absent from Matthew but
present in Luke are :—i. 23-28; 1. 35-38; iv. 21-241; vi. 30;
ix. 38-41; xi. 40-44; total, 24 verses.

(c) The passages of Mark which, though present in Matthew,
have no equivalent in Luke are :—i. 5-6; iv. 33-34; vi. 17-29;
ix. 10-13; ix. 28-29; ix. 43-47; x. 1-10; x. 35-41; xi. 12-14,
20-22; xi. 24; xiii. 10, 18, 27, 32; xiv. 26-282; xv. 3-5;
total, 61 verses. To which must be added the long continuous
passage of 74 verses, vi. 45-viii. 26, commonly spoken of as
Luke’s “‘ great’ omission.” As, however, the two miracles of
gradual healing (vii. 32-37 and viii. 22-26) which Matthew also
omits occur in this section of Mark, we must beware of counting
these 11 verses twice over in estimating the total omissions by
Luke from Mark. Thus the total of Luke’s complete omissions
will then amount to 155 verses.

(4) The passages of Mark—eacluding the Passion story (1.6.
Mk. xiv. 17 ff.=Lk. xxu. 14 ff.)—which do not appear in Luke
in the same context as in Mark, but for which there is substituted
a different version in another context, are :—Mk. i. 16-20, cf.
Lk. v. 1-11; iii. 22-27, οἵ. Lk. xi. 14-23; 1. 28-30, cf. Lk.
xii. 10; iv. 30-32, cf. Lk. xiii. 18-19; vi. 1-6, cf. Lk. iv. 16-30;
vill. 15, cf. Lk. xi. 1; 1x. 42) cf. Lk. xvii. 2): ix. 50, cf.
Lk. xiv. 34; x. 11-12, cf. Lk. xvi. 18; x. 31, cf. Lk. xii. 30;
x. 42-45, cf. Lk. xxii. 25-27; xi. 23, cf. Lk. xvii. 6; xi. 25, cf.
Lk. xi. 4; xii. 28-34, cf. Lk. x. 25-28; xiii. 15-16, cf. Lk. xvii.
31; xiii. 21-23, cf. Lk. xvii. 23; xiv. 3-9, cf. Lk. vii. 36-50;
[xv. 16-20, cf. Lk. xxiii. 11]; total, 58 verses. The Passion
story in Mk. xiv. 17-xvi. 8 contains 100 verses; at least 20
(perhaps over 30) of these appear in Luke, cf. p. 222. In the
main Luke follows a non-Marcan source, but in many passages
it is not possible to differentiate the two.

1 But Matthew has matter similar to Mk. iv. 21, 22, 24 elsewhere, i.e.
Mt, v. 15, x. 26, vii 2, and has already (Mt. xiii. 9) given Mk. xiii. 4 in the
form in which it occurs in Mk. iv. 9. Mk. iv. 25 is placed by Matthew a little
earlier, Mt. xiii. 12.

3 But for xiv. 30 Luke in another context has an equivalent, Lk. xxii 34.

CH. VII

THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION

197

(B) The non-Marcan Parallels in Matthew and Luke
N.B.—Where Mark and Q overlap the reference to Mark is

given within round brackets.

Where the version in Matthew is

probably in the main not derived from Q the reference is within

square brackets.

LUKE MatTTrHEw

iii. 7-9, 16-17 =iii. 7-10, 11-12 (cf.
Mk. i. 7-8).

iv. 1-13 =iv. 1-11 (cf. ΜΚ. i
12-13).

vi. 20-23 =v. [3-4, 6], 11-12.

vi. 27-33, 35-36 =[v. 44, 39-40, 42;
vii, 12; v. 46-
47, 45, 48).

vi. 37-38, 39-40, =vii. 1-2, [xv. 14;

41-42 x. 24-25]; vii.

3-5.

vi. 43-44 =vii. 16-18, 20; xii.
33-35.

vi. 45 =[vii. 21]

vi. 47-49 =vii. 24-27

vii. 1-10 =viii. 5-10, 13.

vii. 18-20, 22-28, =xi. 2-11, 16-19.

31-35

ix. 57-60 =viii. 19-22.

ΠΥ =ix. 37-38.

x. 3-12 =x. 16, 10a, 11-13,
10b, 7-8, 14-15
(cf. Mk. vi. 6-11).

x. 13-15 =xi, 21-24,

x. 21-22 =Xxi. 25-27

x. 23-24 =xiii. 16-17

xi. 2-4 =[vi. 9-13]

xi, 9-13 =vii 7-11.

xi. 14-23 =xii. 22-27 (cf. Mk
iii, 22-27)

xi. 24-26 =xii. 43-45.

xi. 29-32 =xii, 38-42 (cf. Mk.
viii. 12).

xi. 33 =v. 15 (cf. Mk. iv.
21).

xi. 34-35 =vi, 22-23.

xi. 39-44, 46-48 =xxiii. [25-26], 23,
6-7a, (27), 4, 29-

31 (cf. Mk. xii.
38-40).
xi, 49-52 =xxiii, 34-36, 13.
xii. 2-9 =x. 26-33 (cf. Mk.

iv. 22, hidden,
and Mk. viii. 38,
ashamed),

LUKE MatTTHEW

xii. 10 =xii. 32 (nearer than
Mk, iii. 28-29),

xii, 22-32 =vi. 25-33.

xii. 33-34 =vi. 19-21.

xii. 39-46 =xxiv. 43-51.

xii. 51-53 =x. 34-36.

xii. 54-56 =xvi. 2-3(om. BN 13
&c. Orig.).

xii. 58-59 =[v. 25-26].

xiii. 18-19 =xiii. 31-32 (cf. Mk,
iv. 30-32).

xiii. 20-21 =xiii. 33.

xiii, 23-24 =[vii. 13-14].

xiii. 26-27 =vii. 22-23.

xiii, 28-29 =viii. 11-12.

xiii, 34-35 =xxiii. 37-39.

χιν 11 Sis) ἊΞΈΣχΙΙ 12.

xviii. 140

xiv. 26-27 =x. 37-38 (cf. Mk.
viii. 34).

xiv. 34-35 =v. 13 (cf. Mk. ix. 50).

xv. 4-7 =([xviii. 12-14].

xvi. 13 =vi. 24.

xvi. 16 =xi 12-13.

xvi. 17 av 18;

xvi. 18 =v. 32 (cf. Mk. x.
11-12),

xvii. 1-2 =xviil. 6-7 (cf. Mk.
ix. 42).

xvii. 3-4 =[xviii. 15, 21-22].

xvii. 6 =xvii. 20 (cf. Mk. xi.
22-23).

Xvii. 23-24 =xxiv. 26-27 (cf. Mk.
xiii. 21).

Xvii. 26-27 =xxiv. 37-39.

Xvii. 34-35 =xxiv. 40-41.

xvii. 37 =xxiv. 28.

xxii. 30b =[xix. 28b].

To this list may be added the parables:
xix. 11-27 =([xxv. 14-30](cf. Mk.
(Pounds) xiii. 34) (Talents).
And the still more diverse
xiv. 15-24 =[xxii. 1-10]
(Great Supper) (Marriage Feast).

198 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT, ΤΠ

L-ll.; ui. 14-15; iv. 13-16, 23-25; v. 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13a,
14, 16-17, 19-24, 27-28, 31-39a, 41, 43; vi. 1-8, 10b, 13b, 16-18,
34; vil. 6, 12b, 15, 19, 28a; vii. 1, 5a, 17; ix. 13a, 26-36;
x. 2a, 5b-8, 16b, 23, 25b, 36, 41; xi. 1, 14, 20, 28-30; xii. 5-7,
11-12a (cf. Lk. xiv. 5), 17-23, 36-37, 45c; xiii. 14-15, 18, 24-30,
35-53; xiv. 28-31; xv. 12-13, 23-25, 30-31; xvi. 2b-3, 11b-12,
17-19, 22b; xvii. 6-7, 18, 24-27; xviii. 3-4, 10, 14, 16-20, 23-35 ;
xix. la, 9-12, 28a; xx. 1-16; xxi. 4-5, 10-11, 14, 15b-16, 28-32
(cf. Lk. vii. 29-30), 43; xxii. 1-14, 33-34, 40; xxiii. 1-3, 5, 7b-10,
15-22, 24, 28, 32-33; xxiv. 10-12, 20, 30a; xxv. 1-13, 31-46;
xxvi. 1, 44, 50, 52-54; xxvu. 3-10, 19, 24-25, 36, 43, 51b-53,
62-66 ; xxviii. 2-4, 11-20.

(D) Passages peculiar to Luke}

1.-. ; i. 1-2, 5-6, 10-14, 23-38 (cf. Mt. i. 1-17); iv. 13, 15;
v. 39; vi. 24-26, 34; vii. 3-6a, 11-17, 21, 29-30, 40-50; vii.
1-3; ix. 31-32, 43, 51-56, 61-62; x. 1, 16 (cf. Mt. x. 40), 17-20,
29-42; xi. 1, 5-8, 12, 16, 27-28, 36-38, 40-41, 45, 53-54; xii.
13-21, 32-33a, 35-38 (cf. Mt. xxv. 1-13), 41, 47-50, 52, 54-57 (cf.
Mt. xvi. 2-3); xiii. 1-5, 6-9 (cf. Mk. xi. 12-14), 10-17, 22-23,
25-27 (cf. Mt. xxv. 11-12), 31-33; xiv. 1-14, 15-24 (cf. Mt. xxii.
2-10), 28-33 ; xv. 1-2, 7-32; xvi. 1-12, 14-15, 19-31; xvii. 7-22,
25-29, 32; xviii. 1-13a, 34; xix. 1-10, 11-27 (cf. Mt. xxv. 14-30),
39-44; xx. 34-35a, 36b, 38b; xxi. 19-20, 22, 24, 26a, 28, 34-38;
xxii. 15-18, 28-30a, 31-32, 35-38, 43-44, 48-49, 51, 53b, 61a, 68,
70; xxi. 2, 4-12, 13-19 (cf. Mk. xv. 6-9), 27-32, 34a, 36, 39-43,
40}, 48, 51a, 53b-54, 56b ; xxiv. 10-53.

1 This list may be supplemented, for the very small Lucan additions, by
that in Hawkins’ Hor. Syn., p. 194 ff.

ΥΠΙ
PROTO-LUKE

SYNOPSIS

Luxke’s DisusrE or Mark

Hawkins showed that in the great Central Section of Luke, ix. 51-
xvii. 14, and also in the section vi. 20-viii. 3, which he called respectively
the ‘“‘ Great” and the “ Lesser’ Interpolations, Luke deserts Mark.
The material in these blocks is derived either from Q or from a source
peculiar to Luke which may be styled L. The section xix. 1-27 is a
third block of similar character.

Once, however, we grasp the full implication of the fact that Q
as well as Mark contained an account of John’s Preaching, the
Baptism and the Temptation, it becomes evident that the section
Lk. ii. 1-iv. 30 constitutes yet another example of Luke’s “ disuse ”
of Mark. Again, Luke’s account of the Resurrection Appearances
is wholly, his account of the Passion mainly, derived from a non-
Marcan source. But, if the Gospel began and ended with non-
Marcan material, is not “interpolation” the wrong word to use of
the other non-Marcan passages mentioned above ὃ The distribution
of Marcan and non-Marcan sections suggests rather the hypothesis
that the non-Marcan material formed the framework into which
extracts from Mark were “ interpolated ”’ by the editor of the Gospel.

ΤῊΝ Composite Document (Q+L)

Our hypothesis implies that the editor of the Gospel found Q,
not in its original form, but embodied in a much larger document
(Q+L), which was in fact a complete Gospel, somewhat longer than
Mark. Summary statement of facts which tell in favour of this
hypothesis. It would appear that, though Luke valued Mark
highly, he regarded the document Q+L as his primary authority ;
when this and Mark contained alternative versions of the same
incident or saying, he usually preferred that of Q+L. This document
Q+L may be styled “ Proto-Luke.”

199

200 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-LUKE

Certain passages in Luke, besides the five considerable sections
discussed above, were probably derived from Proto-Luke. Some
of these can be identified with practical certainty, others are more
doubtful.

AUTHORSHIP AND TENDENCY

The existence of Proto-Luke a scientific hypothesis which, up
to a point, is capable of verification; its authorship a matter of
conjecture.

The “ tendency ” of Proto-Luke seems to be identical with that
of the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts, and that whether
we consider the first or the second part of the Acts. This suggests
the view that Luke himself may have been the person who originally
combined Q and L, and then, at some subsequent date, produced an
enlarged edition of his earlier work by incorporating large extracts
from Mark and prefixing an account of the Infancy.

Whatever view be held as to authorship, Proto-Luke appears to
be a document independent of Mark and approximately of the same
date—a conclusion of considerable moment to the historian.

CHAPTER VIII
PROTO-LUKE 1

Luxe’s DisusE or Marx

In the study of the Synoptic Problem, next in importance to
the fundamental discovery of the use of Mark by Matthew and
Luke, I would place the conclusion that Q and Mark overlapped.
This conclusion, we have seen, is in no way dependent on the
exact content we give to the symbol Q. The essential fact
stands that the source (or sources) of the non-Marcan material
common to Matthew and Luke—whatever its (or their) exact
nature or extent, or in whatever form or forms it lay before
them respectively—contained certain items which also appear
in Mark but in a different version.

Closely related to this is a further conclusion, partly anticipated
by previous writers, but most completely demonstrated by Sir
John Hawkins, in an essay in the Ozford Studies, “ Three
Limitations to St. Luke’s Use of St. Mark’s Gospel.” Sir John
there pointed out that, whereas over a large part of his Gospel
Luke is clearly reproducing the story of Mark, not only in
substance and in order but with the closest verbal agree-
ments, there are two large tracts, viz. Lk. vi. 20 - viii. 3
and Lk. ix. 51-xviii. 14, in which he makes no use of Mark
at all, or, at most, derives from him a few odd verses. He
further shows that in yet another great tract of the Gospel,

1 The main argument of this chapter appeared in an article in the Hibbert
Journal for October 1921, certain extracts from which (with the kind permission
of the Editor) are reprinted here along with much fresh material.

201

202 THE FOUR GOSPELS rr. 0

the section beginning with the Last Supper (Lk. xxii. 14) and
ending with the discovery of the Empty Tomb (Lk. xxiv. 12),
the relation of the Lucan to the Marcan story in regard to
substance, order, and verbal parallelism is entirely different
from that in the other sections where Luke appears to be using
Mark.

I propose in this chapter to take up the investigation at the
point at which Sir John laid it down, and I hope to establish
a conclusion which may not only advance one step further the
solution of the interesting critical problem of the literary relations
of the first three Gospels, but which has also, if I mistake not,
an important bearing on the question of the historical evidence
for the Life of Christ.

In the Passion narrative Luke recounts several important
incidents not mentioned at all by Mark; but there are, on the
reckoning of Sir J. Hawkins, some 123 verses of Luke which in
substance have a parallel in Mark. But whereas elsewhere in
the Gospel where such parallelism exists 53% of Luke’s words
are found in Mark, in this section the percentage falls to 27.
And since in some 20 out of the 123 verses in question the
resemblance of Luke to Mark, both in the structure of sentences
and in verbal similarities, is very close, the average for the
remainder is much less than this 27%. Besides this there are
no less than twelve variations in the order in which incidents
are recorded by Mark and Luke. Lastly, whereas the additions
which Matthew makes to Mark are clearly detachable from the
context, those made by Luke are not; they are woven into
the structure of the narrative ! in such a way that they cannot
be removed without reducing the story to confusion. The
conclusion to which these facts point Sir John himself hesitates
to draw. It is that Luke is in the main reproducing an account
of the Passion parallel to, but independent of, Mark, and enriching
it with occasional insertions from Mark. But the conclusion has
been drawn by various other authorities. The most elaborate

1 Cf. Oxford Studies, pp. 78-80.

cH. Vill PROTO-LUKE 203

attempt to work it out in detail is perhaps that of the American
scholar, Mr. A. M. Perry.!

The section Lk. vi. 20-viii. 3 contains the Sermon on the
Plain, the Centurion’s Servant, the Widow of Nain, John’s
Message, the Anointing, the parable in the house of the Pharisee,
and a brief mention of a preaching tour with the names of the
ministering women. Clearly Luke is not indebted to Mark for
any of this; on the contrary, it is fairly clear that the reason
why in the account of the last week at Jerusalem he omits the
Anointing at Bethany recorded by Mark is that he has previously
related this somewhat different story of an Anointing in Galilee.

The section Lk. ix. 51-xviii. 14 is the centre and core of the
Third Gospel. It occupies 25 out of the 80 pages of Luke in the
Greek Testament before me, and it contains most of the parables
and narrative peculiar to Luke as well as about half of the
material in Luke which can plausibly be assigned to Q. It is
often spoken of as “‘ The Peraean section.” This is a misnomer.
Mark represents our Lord’s last journey to Jerusalem as having
been through Peraea on the east of Jordan, but there is absolutely
no hint of this in Luke. On the contrary, the way in which
allusions to Samaria and Samaritans are introduced in this
section suggests that he conceived of the journey as being through
Samaria.2 But the geographical notices are of the vaguest.
Some scholars have spoken of this section of the Gospel as
“the travel document.” This is, from the critical standpoint,
an even more dangerously misleading title, as it implies that
this section once existed as a separate document. The only
safe name by which one can call it is the ‘“‘ Central Section ”
—a title which states a fact but begs no questions.

1 A. M. Perry, The Sources of Luke’s Passion Narrative (University of
Chicago), 1920. As long ago as 1891 P. Feine, Hine vorkanonische Ueber-
lieferung des Lukas, elaborated a theory which implied something of the sort.

3 Of course the most direct route from Galilee to Jerusalem would be
through Samaria. The roundabout route on the east of Jordan was preferred
by Galilean pilgrims on account of the religious hostility of the Samaritans.
If, as the Fourth Gospel represents, our Lord visited Jerusalem more than
once, He may, at different times, have used both routes.

204 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. If

Sir John Hawkins shows that in this Central Section Luke
makes no use, or practically no use, of Mark. It includes
versions of the Beelzebub Controversy and the parable of the
Mustard Seed, but these are from Q. It includes the Great
Commandment in a version which has some few points of agree-
ment with Matthew against Mark and may therefore be from Q,
but which is at any rate strikingly different from Mark’s—in
particular in placing the Great Commandment itself in the
mouth of the scribe and not of our Lord. It includes also
seven short sayings which form “ doublets’ with sayings found
elsewhere in Luke in contexts derived from Mark.!

In at least five of these the version of the saying found in
the context of Luke derived from Mark is very much closer to
the Marcan form than is the version found in Luke’s Central
Section. An author may always think one or two particular
sayings so important as to be worth repeating, but where such
repetition occurs several times the “‘ doublets” are presumptive
evidence of the use of parallel sources. There are also nine say-
ings of one verse each having a general resemblance to sayings
also found in Mark and in Matthew. In several of these the
versions in Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in
a way which suggests that Luke’s version is really derived from Q ;
in all there are notable divergences between the Lucan and
Marcan versions. The conclusion to be drawn from these facts
is that, while there is no reason to believe that Luke would have
religiously avoided introducing an odd saying or a word or two
from Mark in his Central Section, yet as a matter of fact he has
done so, if at all, to an extent that is practically negligible.

Sir John named the two sections (Lk. vi. 20-viii. 3 and
ix. 51-xviii. 14), in regard to which he proved Luke’s “ disuse
of Mark,” respectively ‘“‘the lesser interpolation”? and “ the
great interpolation.” Each of them, as we have seen, contains
material which, as it occurs also in Matthew, we may assign
to Q, mixed up with material peculiar to Luke. This latter

1 For details and full discussion cf. Oxford Studies, pp. 35-41,

CH, VIII PROTO-LUKE 205

material it will be convenient to speak of as L. But there
is a third section (Lk. xix. 1-27), differing from these only in
the matter of length, to which by parity of nomenclature there
might be given the name “ the third interpolation.” It contains
the story of Zacchaeus, which is L, and the parable of the
Pounds. Harnack and others, from the close resemblance of
this last to Matthew’s parable of the Talents, are inclined to
assign this parable to Q. In that case “ the third interpolation ”
is also a mixture of Q and L material, though that is not a point
to which much significance attaches.

But, and here I come to a point fundamental to my argument,
there is yet another considerable section in Luke (Lk. iii. 1-iv. 30),
compiled like these out of Q and L material. It comprises an
account of John’s Preaching, the Baptism, the Genealogy, the
Temptation, and the Rejection at Nazareth. In this section,
just as in the “great interpolation,” there are indeed a few
points of contact with Mark; but closer examination makes
it evident that the majority of these passages are not likely
to have been actually derived from Mark. For it is certain
that Q, as well as Mark, had an account of John’s Preach-
ing, the Baptism and the Temptation (cf. p. 186 ff.), and that
Luke is in the main reproducing that of Q; also it is clear that
Luke’s account of the Rejection of Nazareth is quite different
from Mark’s. Once these facts are grasped, we must ask
whether the “‘ disuse of the Marcan source,” which was demon-
strated by Hawkins in regard to the “ interpolations,” may not be
a principle which is equally applicable to the section iii. 1-iv. 30.

The number of verses in this section of Luke which contain
anything at all closely resembling Mark are very few (Lk. iii. 3-4 ;
iii, 16, 21-22; iv. 1-2). Thefirst is the most striking; for Luke
agrees with Mark against Matthew (who therefore probably
here represents Q) in reading “the baptism of repentance for
the remission of sins” (Lk. iii. 3) instead of “repent ye, for
the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. ui. 2). Mark’s phrase
(which occurs also in Acts ii. 38) may well in this case have

206 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 1

seemed to Luke an improvement on that of Q. On the other
hand, the application to John the Baptist (Lk. iii. 4) of the
prophecy in Isaiah, “ The voice of one crying in the wilderness,”
was probably a piece of primitive Christian apologetic ante-
cedent to all written documents, and therefore probably stood in
Q as well as in Mark. The probability is slghtly enhanced by the
fact that Matthew and Luke concur in giving this quotation
alone, without that from Malachi which Mark prefixes.

If the other passages (Lk. iii. 16, 21-22, iv. 1-2) are examined
two things will be found. (1) The rest of the Q material which
appears in both Matthew and Luke is not selt-explanatory
without these words; and Q must have included either them
or something more or less equivalent. (2) In every case there
are notable verbal agreements between Matthew and Luke
against Mark, which show that they derived the words which
stand in Mark, as well as those which do not, partly, if not wholly,
from Q. The saying “he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit
and with fire ” is the only one in Luke where it is likely that he
is influenced by Mark. In this case it is possible that the
contrast, as the saying stood in Q, was between baptism by
water and by fire. In Mark it is between baptism by water
and by the Spirit. If so, it would appear that neither Matthew
nor Luke liked to dispense with either expression, and conflated
the two versions. The conflation is such an obvious one that
it would be quite likely they should both make it independently.

It is remarkable that, whereas Mk. i. 14 says that Jesus
after the Temptation went into Galilee, Matthew and Luke
agree in mentioning that He went first of all to Nazareth
(Mt. iv. 13, Lk. iv. 16). Still more remarkable, they both agree
in using the form Nazara—which occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament. It would look as if Q, which clearly had a
word or two of narrative introduction to John’s Preaching and
the Temptation, had a brief notice of the change of scene in
which the name Nazara occurred. This would also explain
why in the Lucan version the story of the Rejection at Nazareth

OH. VII PROTO-LUKE 207

is inserted in this context—or rather it would justify the insertion,
placing as the opening incident of the ministry a story which
the author evidently regards as symbolising in little the whole
course of Israel’s rejection of Christ and His religion. We infer,
then, that Lk. iv. 14-15, which has hardly any points of verbal
agreement with Mark, except in the unavoidable proper names
Jesus and Galilee, was derived from Q, not Mark.

Lastly, it is hardly likely that Luke would have ignored
Mk. i. 6 (camel’s hair, locusts and wild honey), and i. 13b,
“and the angels ministered unto him,” if he had been following
Mark as his principal source. Accordingly, we conclude that the
indebtedness of Luke to Mark in the section ii. l-iv. 30 is so
small that, for practical purposes, the section may fairly be
classed with the three previously mentioned as an example of
Luke’s “ disuse” of Mark.

Connect this with another observation. The account of the
Resurrection Appearances which forms the conclusion of Luke’s
Gospel must have come from a non-Marcan source. It cannot
have been taken from the lost ending of Mark, for it only records
Appearances in Jerusalem, instead of the Appearance in Galilee
which Mark’s original conclusion evidently recorded. Also it
is led up to by an account of the Last Supper and Passion,
which, as we have seen, differs so considerably from the Marcan
in substance and in the relative order of events, and which
resembles Mark so much less than usual in its actual wording,
that it looks as if it were derived in the main from an inde-
pendent source.

At once there leaps to the mind the suggestion, surely “ inter-
polation ” was quite the wrong title to give to any of these non-
Marcan blocks. Taken all together they are much larger in
extent than the sections derived from Mark. From them comes
the beginning, and from them also comes the end, of the Gospel.
Suppose, then, they stood all together in a single document—this
would form something very like a complete Gospel, opening with
the Preaching of John and ending with the Resurrection Appear-

208 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT, πί

ances. But, if so, it is not the non-Marcan sections, it is those
derived from Mark, that should be styled the “ interpolations.”

We are on the verge of a conclusion of the first importance.
At least we are compelled to test the hypothesis that the non-
Marcan sections represent a single document, and to Luke this was
the framework into which he inserted, at convenient places, extracts
from Mark. If so, there is an essential difference in the way
in which Mark is used by the authors of the First and of the
Third Gospels. To Matthew, Mark is the primary source and
provides the framework into which matter from other sources
is inserted. To Luke the non-Marcan source is the more primary
authority. To it he prefixes chaps. i. and ii. as an introduction,
and into the framework which it provides he fits materials
- derived from Mark.

THe Composire Document (Q +L)

The hypothesis I propose in no way conflicts with the generally
accepted view that Matthew and Luke are ultimately dependent
not only on Mark but on Q—meaning by Q a single written
source. Most, if not all, of the agreements of Matthew and Luke,
where Mark is absent, are, I think, to be referred to Q; but I
desire to interpolate a stage between Q and the editor of the
Third Gospel. I conceive that what this editor had before him
was, not Q in its original form—which, I hold, included hardly
any narrative and no account of the Passion—but Q+L, that
is, Ὁ embodied in a larger document, a kind of ‘“ Gospel” in
fact, which I will call Proto-Luke. This Proto-Luke would
have been slightly longer than Mark, and about one-third of
its total contents consisted of materials derived from Q.

The hypothesis of a Proto-Luke was suggested in the first
instance by the observation that in the Third Gospel Marcan
and non-Marcan materials are distributed, as it were, in alternate
stripes, and that both the beginning and the end of the Gospel
belong, not to the Marcan, but to the non-Marcan strain. It is

OH. VIII PROTO-LUKE 209

fortified by a consideration of the comparative extent of the
material derived from the two sources. If we leave out of
account the story of the Passion from the Last Supper onwards,
since from this point it is often difficult to be sure what comes
from Mark and what from elsewhere, we find that the non-
Marcan material between 111. 1 and xxii. 14 amounts to at least
671 verses, while the extracts from Mark total only 346, even
if we assign all doubtful cases to the Marcan source (Lk. xxii. 14).
In the Passion and Resurrection story the non-Marcan elements
may be roughly estimated as 135 verses, those probably derived
from Mark at perhaps not more than 30.

Luke iii. 1 opens with an elaborate chronological statement :
“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, when Pontius
Pilate was . . . the word of the Lord came to John the
son of Zacharias in the wilderness.” This surely reads—I owe
the observation to a conversation with Sir J. Hawkins—as if
it was originally written as the opening section of a book. The
impression is strengthened by the curious position of the
genealogy of our Lord (iii. 23). If this had been inserted by
the last editor of the Gospel, we should have expected to find it,
like the genealogy in Matthew, somewhere in chaps. i. or ii. in
connection with the account of the Birth and Infancy. 1,
however, it was originally inserted in a book which only began
with Lk. iii. 1, its position is explained ; for it occurs immediately
after the first mention of the name Jesus.

A further reason for supposing that Luke found the Q and
the L elements in the non-Marcan sections already combined
into a single written source is to be derived from a consideration
of the way in which, he deals with incidents or sayings in Mark,
which he rejects in favour of other versions contained either in
the Q or in the L elements of that source.

Of the most conspicuous of these, two, the Beelzebub Con-
troversy (Mk. iii. 22 ff., cf. Lk. xi. 14-23) and the Mustard Seed
(Mk. iv. 30 ff., cf. Lk. xiii. 18-19), must be assigned to Q; two,
the Rejection at Nazareth (Mk. vi. 1 ff., cf. Lk. iv. 16-30) and the

210 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΤΙ

Anointing (Mk. xiv. 3 ff., cf. Lk. vii. 36 ff.), belong to L; and
one, the Great Commandment (Mk. xii. 28 ff., cf. Lk. x. 25-28),
may be from either Q or L. If we look up these passages in
Mark in a Synopsis of the Gospels and notice the incidents
which immediately precede and follow them, we shall see that
Luke reproduces everything else in the neighbourhood from
Mark in the original order, but that he simply omits Mark’s
account of these incidents. The alternative versions which he
gives are always given in a completely different context—presum-
ably, then, their context in the source from which he took them.
Of special significance in this regard is the context in which he
places the story of the Anointing. Mark gives an Anointing
at Bethany the day before the Last Supper; Luke omits this,
but gives an Anointing by a woman that was a sinner in Galilee.
That Luke, with his special interest in repentant sinners, should
have preferred the version he gives is quite explicable; but
his desertion of the Marcan context is unintelligible if the version
he substitutes was a floating tradition attached to no particular
occasion. His proceeding is quite explicable if the version sub-
stituted stood along with the other matter with which Luke
connects it in a written document which Luke on the whole
preferred to Mark.

In the instances just quoted the non-Marcan version is a
fuller and more interesting version. But there are other cases
where the contrary seems true. If we compare the saying in
Luke about Salt (Lk. xiv. 34) with that in Mark (ix. 49-50) ;
or Mark’s long discussion of Divorce (Mk. x. 2-12) with the
single verse in Luke (Lk. xvi. 18); or the two versions of the
saying contrasting the Rulers of the Gentiles and the Son of
Man (Mk. x. 42-45, Lk. xxii. 25-27), we shall see that every
time Mark’s version is the more vigorous and interesting. It
would look, then, as if Luke’s preference is for the non-Marcan
source as a whole, not merely for particular items in it on account
of their intrinsic merit.

Luke’s preference of his non-Marcan source to Mark, so far

CH, VIII PROTO-LUKE 211

at least as the Q element in that source is concerned, may be
further shown by a comparison with Matthew. We have already
seen that when Mark and Q overlap, Matthew carefully conflates
the two; e.g. in the account of John the Baptist, of the Tempta-
tion, and of the Beelzebub Controversy, he gives, not only the Q
account, but certain details which occur only in Mark (Mt. iii. 4=
Mk. i. 6; Mt. iv. LIb=Mk. i. 13b; Mt. xii. 31=Mk. iii. 28).
Luke, on the other hand, appears either to discard the Marcan
version altogether, or to take over only a few words. Again,
when Q and Mark overlap, Matthew is in sharp contrast to
Luke in preferring the context in which the saying occurs in
Mark; the Beelzebub Controversy and the Mustard Seed may
be instanced. But perhaps the best illustration of the difference
in their method is the conflation by Matthew (x. 1 ff.) of the
Charge to the Seventy (Lk. x. 1-10) with Mark’s Charge to the
Twelve (Mk. vi. 7 ff.), as contrasted with Luke’s presentation
of the same material as two distinct episodes.

But a similar preference by Luke of the non-Marcan source
may be detected in regard to the L as well as the Q element in
that source. In the Passion story Luke not only rearranges
the Marcan order some twelve times, he also three times
substitutes the non-Marcan for the Marcan representation on
important points of fact. He speaks of a mocking by Herod,
not by the soldiers of Pilate; he makes the trial take place
in the morning instead of at night; and, most conspicuous of
all, makes Jerusalem rather than Galilee the scene of the
Resurrection Appearances.

It would look, then, as if Luke tends to prefer the non-
Marcan to the Marcan version, and this whether it be the longer
or the shorter, and whether it belongs to that element in the
source which we can further analyse as being ultimately derived
from Q or from the element which we call L. But such a prefer-
ence, especially where it is a preference in regard to the order
of events, is much more explicable if Q and L were already
combined into a single document. For the two in combination

212 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

would make a book distinctly longer than Mark, and would
form a complete Gospel. Such a work might well seem to
Luke a more important and valuable authority than Mark.
But this would not be true of either Q or L in separation. The
conclusion, then, that Q+L lay before the author of the Third
Gospel as a single document and that he regarded this as his
principal source appears to be inevitable.

This last argument has been impugned on the ground that,
while we can observe all cases where Luke has preferred his
other source to Mark, we do not know, since Luke’s other source
or sources are lost, that he may not as often have discarded
their version in favour of Mark’s. It is, I concede, quite possible
that in some cases Luke thought Mark’s version superior, and
therefore omitted the non-Marcan version. I am not concerned
to prove that Luke thought meanly of Mark as an authority—
had he done that he would not have incorporated two-thirds
of it—nor yet that he always preferred the non-Marcan version.
My point is, firstly, that the frequency of his preference, and
especially the fact that it extends to matters of order, is explicable
only if the non-Marcan material formed a complete Gospel so
considerable as to seem worthy not only of being compared
with, but even of being preferred to, Mark. Secondly, for the
verifiable reason that Luke derives about twice as much from
Proto-Luke as he does from Mark, I beg leave to think that
Luke regards this as his principal source; in which case it is
probable that he would prefer it to Mark more frequently than
vice versa.

Collateral evidence that the Q and L material had been
combined before they were used by the editor of the Third
Gospel can be found in the use of the style ὁ Κύριος, “the Lord,”
instead of the simple name Jesus in narratwe. This usage is
not found at all in Matthew! and Mark; though it is found
twice in the spurious conclusion of Mark (xvi. 19, 20). It occurs

1 In Mt. xxviii. 6 it is found in the T.R., but is omitted by B WN 33, 0,
Syr. S., 6.

OH. VIII PROTO-LUKE 213

5 times in John. In Luke it occurs 14 times, or, if we accept the,
probably here correct, reading of the T.R. (om. BLT) in xxii. 31,
15 times. But the striking fact is that while it never appears
in passages clearly derived by Luke from Mark, the 15 instances
are divided between sections derived from Q and from L in
numbers roughly proportionate to the extent of matter derived
from each of these sources. Seven occurrences are in material
clearly from L (vii. 13; x. 39,41; xiii. 15; xviii.6; xix. 8; xxii.
31); 4 are connected with matter certainly from Q (vu. 19; x.1;
xi. 39; xii. 42); 2 (xvii. 5, 6) are connected with a saying which
may be either L or Q. The remaining 2 occur in one verse
(xxii. 61), “The Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And
Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he said unto him

..’ The first half of the verse is peculiar to Luke, the second
half may be from Mark. In that case it is the one exception
to the rule that the phrase does not occur where Luke is copying
Mark, but it is one readily explained by assimilation of the
“ Jesus’ that stood in Mark to “the Lord” in the previous
sentence—ancient taste rather avoided the practice, dear to the
modern reporter, of alluding to the same person in the same
context by two different names or descriptions.

A similar but no less significant phenomenon is the use of
the title in the Vocative in personal address to Jesus. κύριε,
“Lord,” though common in Matthew (19 times), only occurs once
in Mark, and that on the lips of the Syrophenician. ἐπιστάτα
is peculiar to Luke. Luke has κύριε 16 times; 14 of these are
in the sections assigned to Proto-Luke, only 2 in those derived
from Mark. And there is something notable about each of
these two exceptional cases. In the first (Lk. v. 12) the addition
of κύριε may be suspected as a textual assimilation to Matthew,
since it makes a minor agreement of Matthew and Luke against
Mark. In the second (Lk. xviii. 41) it is substituted for
ῥαββουνεί, ® more impressive form of ῥαββεί which is only
used once in Mark and once in John. Luke, it may be noted,
avoids all Hebrew words; he never uses ῥαββεί. Of the

214 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. II

14 cases of κύριε in non-Marcan passages, 8 are L, 6 are in the
midst of, or in the (possibly editorial) introductions to, Q sayings.
That is to say, this use of κύριε, ifnot conspicuously characteristic
of both elements of the sources of Proto-Luke, must be due to
a hand that combined them before they were further combined
with matter derived from Mark.1

Finally, the hypothesis that Proto-Luke was Luke’s main
source explains why Luke omits so much more of the contents
of Mark’s Gospel than Matthew does; in particular—if the
view (cf. p. 176 ff.) that Luke used a mutilated copy of Mark be
rejected—it would account for the so-called “ great omission,”
Mk. vi. 45-viii. 26, which linguistic statistics? show clearly
was an original part of Mark. To Luke Mark was a supple-
mentary source, from which, if pressed for space, he would
refrain from extracting material which seemed to him of sub-
ordinate interest.$

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PRoTO-LUKE

Granted the existence of Proto-Luke—a kind of half-way
house between Collections of Sayings, like Q, and the biographical
type of Gospel of which Mark was the originator—it is probable
that Luke derived from it some other sections of his Gospel
besides the four large blocks iii. l-iv. 30, vi. 20-viii. 3, ix. 51-
xvii. 14, xix. 1-27, and the greater part of the Passion and
Resurrection story. We must almost certainly assign to it the
Call of Peter and the Sons of clearly non-Marcan Zebedee (v. 1-11),

11 have to thank Miss M. J. M‘Nab of Edinburgh for kind assistance in
collecting some further statistics of linguistic usage. The results obtained,
though in general confirmatory of the Proto-Luke hypothesis, were not suffi-
ciently striking to be worth quoting as evidence. This, so far as it goes,
favours the view maintained below that Q and L were originally combined by
the same editor as the one who subsequently united Q + L with Mark to form
our present Gospel.

2 Oxford Studies, pp. 61 ff.

* Various reasons why most of the matter in this section of Mark would
be likely to appeal to Luke as of inferior interest are suggested in Ozford
studies, pp. 67-74 and p. 223,

OH. VIII PROTO-LUKE 215

and also the list of the Apostles (vi. 14-16), since the names
given are not quite the same as in Mark. In that case the brief
summary, Lk. iv. 14-15, the Rejection of Nazareth, the Call
of the Three, the names of the Twelve, no doubt with a word
or two of connection, would have formed in Proto-Luke the
transition, a very natural and appropriate one, between the
Temptation story and the Sermon on the Plain. Unless Luke
has omitted something to make room for Marcan material the
account of the Galilean ministry in Proto-Luke must have
concluded with the residue of the “ lesser interpolation,” ending
Lk. viii. 3. The Central Section, though vague in its geographical
setting, seems, as already noted, to be conceived of as a slow
progress towards Jerusalem, apparently through Samaria. The
shorter passage (xix. 1-27), dated at Jericho, would follow on
naturally.1 A little later, in a section otherwise derived from
Mark, Luke inserts the Lament over Jerusalem (xix. 41-44). But
the mention of the Mount of Olives, a note of place with other
details not found in Mark, in Lk. xix. 37-40 suggests that Proto-
Luke may have contained a version of the Triumphal Entry
of which these verses are a fragment. The last four verses of
the Apocalyptic discourse, xxi. 5-36, and possibly some others
(e.g. 18) which do not occur in the parallel in Mk. xiii., may be
from this same source.

Some scholars have argued the influence of a source parallel
to Mark in some of the minor variants of Luke in other places
where his narrative is clearly in the main derived from Mark,
as for instance in the additions made in Luke’s version of the
Transfiguration, ix. 28-30, and of the reply to the Sadducees
about the Resurrection, xx. 34-38, or in details such as the
mention of Satan (xxii. 3) or of the names Peter and John (xxii. 8).
But additions of this kind, as well as, at any rate, the majority
of Luke’s divergences from Mk. xiii. in his Apocalyptic chap. xxi.,
are well within the limits of editorial conjecture or inference
from the context. They are not enough to justify the assertion

1 | think it possible xix. 28 may have stood in Proto-Luke.

216 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

that Proto-Luke contained a parallel version of these sections
of Mark, though it is not impossible that this was the case.

The disentanglement of the elements derived from Mark and
from Proto-Luke respectively in the section xxii. 14 to the end
of the Gospel is in points of detail highly speculative. Luke
writes in a literary style, he is not a mere “ scissors and paste ”’
compiler of sources. Besides, two independent accounts of a
story of which the outstanding episodes are a farewell Supper,
a Trial, and a Crucifixion, could not but each contain certain
sections in which precisely the same incident was described, and
where the words employed, “ accuse,” ‘ scourge,” ‘“ crucify,”
would be determined as much by the necessary vocabulary of
the subject matter as by the taste of a writer. But, if the
general position that Luke preferred Proto-Luke to Mark is
correct, we are entitled to approach the question with the
preliminary assumption that everything after Lk. xxii. 14 is
derived from Proto-Luke, except those verses which there are
special reasons for assigning to Mark on account of their close
verbal resemblance to Mark and the possibility of their being
detached from the context without spoiling the general sense.
This assumption is fortified by the observation of the re-
markable variations in order between Mark and Luke which
suggest that Luke is in the main following his non-Marcan
source.

Hawkins 1 selects the following passages as closest to Mark in
the smaller structure of the sentence as well as in actual wording :
Lk. xxii. 18, 22, 42, 46, 47, 52 f., 54b, 61, 71; Lk. xxiii. 22,
26, 34b, 44 f., 46, 52 f.; Lk. xxiv. 6a. Others which may
possibly be derived from Mark are Lk. xxii. 33-34a, 55 f., 59 f.,
69; xxiii. 3, 25, 33, 35, 38, 49, 51; also xxiv. 6b, clearly an
adaptation of Mk. xvi. 7. But even of the passages in Hawkins’
list two (Lk. xxii. 61; xxiii. 46) are conflated with material
from some other source. But, taking Hawkins’ list as repre-
senting the minimum of what Luke derived from Mark, we

1 Oxford Studies, p. 77.

OH. VIII PROTO-LUKE 217

note that it includes nearly all the passages which deal with
Peter's Denial and the incident of Simon of Cyrene carrying
the Cross. I incline to think Luke’s non-Marcan source did not
contain these incidents. Its account of the actual Crucifixion,
and probably also of the Entombment, seems to have been
quite brief—possibly little more than a bare statement of the
facts—so that from xxiii. 33 to xxiv. 10a Luke reverses his
ordinary procedure and makes Mark his main source.}

In framing our mental picture of Proto-Luke as practically a
Gospel, giving a story parallel with Mark’s, from the Preaching
of John to the Passion and Resurrection, we have noted
numerous cases where the two writings give divergent versions
of what is clearly the same event, parable, or saying. To com-
_ plete the picture we must add three cases which should probably
be viewed, not so much as different versions of the same incident,
but as similar stories told in order to bring out the same kind
of moral. Such are the two examples of our Lord’s “ breaking
the Sabbath ”’ by works of healing (Lk. xiii. 10-17, xiv. 1-6), to be
compared to the two slightly different stories told for a similar
purpose by Mark (ii. 23-iii. 6) or by John (v. 1-18); and the
command to show themselves to the priest—an illustration, in
the contrary sense, of our Lord’s attitude to the Law—in
connection with two quite different stories of Cleansing Lepers in
Mark and in Luke (Mk. i. 44, Lk. xvii. 14) ; or the two occasions
on which His claim to forgive sins is challenged (Lk. vii. 48-49,
ef. Mk. ii. 7=Lk. v. 21). Lastly, may not the Mission of the
Seventy (Lk. x. 1 ff.) and the parable of the Barren Fig Tree
(Lk. xiii. 6-9) be parallel versions of Mark’s Mission of the
Twelve and Cursing of the Fig Tree ?

AUTHORSHIP AND TENDENCY
We proceed to ask the question, Can we in any way determine
the date and authorship of Proto-Luke ?

1 The most thorough attempt I know to unravel Luke’s sources is T'he
Sources of Luke’s Passion Narrative, A. M. Perry (Chicago, 1920).

218 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

I think we can. But before putting forward a suggestion
on this point I must emphasise that it is put forward only as
a suggestion. The existence of Proto-Luke is, I claim, a scientific
hypothesis which is, to a considerable extent, capable of verifica-
tion ; and since it was put forward in my article in the Hzbbert
Journal, it has received the adhesion of not a few New Testament
scholars. But the suggestion I make as to its authorship is
one which, from the nature of the case, does not admit either of
verification or refutation to anything like the same extent.

I suggest that the author of Proto-Luke—the person,
I mean, who combined together in one document Q and the
bulk of the material peculiar to the Third Gospel—was no other
than Luke the companion of Paul. And I suggest that this
same Luke some years afterwards expanded his own early work
by prefixing the stories of the Infancy and by inserting extracts
from Mark—no doubt at the same time making certain minor
alterations and additions. For reasons summarised in the
last chapter of this volume, I hold that the author of the
Third Gospel and the Acts was Luke the companion of Paul,
who kept the diary which forms the basis of the so-called
“we sections” or “travel document’”’ in the latter part of
Acts. But if Luke wrote the Acts twenty years or so later
than the events with which it ends—and I cannot personally
accept an earlier date—there were at least two periods of
literary activity in his life. There was the period when,
while in attendance on Paul, he wrote the “ travel document,”
and a later period when, years after the Apostle’s death,
he embodied this early sketch into a larger and maturer
history. The suggestion I make is that what is true of the
Acts is also true of the Gospel. Luke during the two years he
was at Caesarea in the company of Paul made good use of his
opportunities of collecting information and made copious notes.!

1 For evidence that in certain respects Luke’s account of the Trial of our
Lord is superior to Mark’s, see H. Danby, J.7.S., Oct. 1919, p. 61 ff On
the Trial before Herod, cf. Ozford Studies, p. 229 ff.

oH, VIII PROTO-LUKE 219

Later on, probably not till after the death of Paul, a copy of Q
came his way, and on the basis of this and his own notes he
composed Proto-Luke as a Gospel for the use of the Church in the
place where he was then living. Still later a copy of Mark
came his way, and he then produced the second and enlarged
edition of his Gospel that has come down to us.

The main reason for supposing the author of the Third
Gospel and the Acts to be the same person as the author of
Proto-Luke is that the “tendency,” that is, the interest and
point of view evinced in the selection of incidents, the emphasis
laid on them, and the general presentation of Christianity and
its history which we find in the two works, is exactly the same
throughout. The special tastes, sympathies, and characteristics
of the author are equally conspicuous in the parts of the Gospel
derived from Proto-Luke, in those which we must attribute to
the editor of the whole, in the first part of Acts, in the “ we
sections,” and in the final editor of Acts.

Thus the author of the “ we sections ” tells us that he stayed
two years in Caesarea, which had once been the capital of the
Herod dynasty ; a special knowledge of, and interest in, the
Herods is found both in Proto-Luke and in the first part of Acts.
He stayed in the house of Philip, the evangelist of Samaria; an
interest in Samaria and Samaritans—a notable feature of Proto-
Luke—appears in the selection of materials (whoever made it)
in the first part of Acts, and in the final editor by whom, of
course, the Preface to the Acts was written.

The desire to represent Christ as the Saviour of the world,
accepted by Gentiles but rejected by His own people, is the
main theme of the Acts,—witness the Preface, the whole develop-
ment of the history as related with special emphasis on each
stage in opening the Gospel to a wider field—to a eunuch,
to Samaritans, to Cornelius a proselyte, to pagans—and the fact
that it ends on the last words of Paul, ‘‘ We go to the Gentiles,
they will hear.” Similarly the editor of Luke (or Proto-Luke)
carries on some lines further the quotation from Isaiah which

220 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. τι

he found in Mark or Q in order to reach the words “ all flesh
shall see the salvation of God”; he traces the genealogy of
Christ, not (like Matthew) to Abraham the father of Israel,
but to Adam the father of all men; he records as the Master’s
final commission (xxiv. 47) the command to go to the Gentiles ;
most significant of all, he narrates, as if it were the first act of
our Lord’s ministry, the Rejection of Nazareth (though he knew
it was not the first, simce he alludes to previous miracles in
Capernaum), because it seemed to him to sum up the history
of the Christian message—the prophet has honour, but not in
his own country ; and just as Elijah and Elisha had been sent,
not to the widows or the lepers of Israel, but to her of Zarepta
and to Naaman the Syrian, so it had been with the Christ Himself.

Again, what to the historian is one of the weak points of
Luke, his preferring the more to the less miraculous of the two
versions of a story laid before him, is characteristic both of the
editor and his sources. Thus Luke or Proto-Luke adds to the
account of the descent at the Baptism of the Spirit as a dove
the words “in bodily form,” ruling out the possibility of its
being a vision. Proto-Luke contains, and Luke prefers to Mark’s
version of the Call of Peter, another which includes a miraculous
draught of fishes. The last editor of Acts never seems to have
reflected that the story of speaking with other tongues at
Pentecost might have been only a magnified account of that
ecstatic “speaking with tongues” which was quite common
in the early Church. The author of the “we sections ” sees a
resurrection in the recovery of Eutychus, even while he records
Paul’s own remark to the effect that he was not dead, and
apparently never asked whether the serpent which clung to
Paul at Malta was really poisonous, or, if so, had actually
bitten him.

Again, there is throughout the Lucan writing an atmosphere
of extraordinary tenderness, somehow made quite compatible
with the sternest call to righteousness, sacrifice, and effort—
an atmosphere which can be felt rather than demonstrated—

᾽

᾿

cH. VII PROTO-LUKE 221

and finding expression in a unique sympathy for the poor, for
women, for sinners, and for all whom men despise. But this
attitude can be felt equally in the Infancy stories, in Proto-Luke,
and in the Acts; it is also what determines many of those
omissions from Mark ! which can only be-due to the final editor
of the Gospel. Now, of course, it can be argued that this
“tendency ” may be explained as that of a particular church
or school of thought rather than of an individual. It may.
But for myself, I cannot resist the impression that the “
sphere ” I have vainly tried to recall has a subtle individuality
which reflects, not a Church tradition, but a personality of a
very exceptional kind.

Dr. Headlam,? in reference to my article in the Hibbert Journal,
demurs to the idea of two editions of the Gospel, but suggests
two stages in its composition before it was put into circulation.
I have no particular objection to this modification of the Proto-
Luke hypothesis. It is extremely difficult to define what would
have constituted “publication” in an illicit society like the
early Church. If Proto-Luke was composed in some provincial
town, very few copies would get abroad. But if after it had
been enlarged by the author a copy came to Rome and was
approved by that Church, this edition would very rapidly get
known elsewhere. All I am concerned to argue is that Proto-
Luke was, and was originally intended as, a complete Gospel ;
but it is quite likely that it was only meant for what in modern
phrase would be called “ private circulation.”

But whether the compiler of Proto-Luke was Luke or not,
the historical importance of the identification of a source of
the Third Gospel entirely independent of Mark is obvious. All
recent discussion of the historical evidence for the Life of Christ
has been based on the assumption that we have only two primary

atmo-

1 #H.g. the Cursing of the Fig Tree. The Syrophenician Woman, with
its reference to Gentiles as dogs and the implication that the Lord hesitated
to heal such, is in Luke’s “great omission.” On Luke’s “tendency” see
Oaford Studies, p. 222 ff.

2 The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, p. 20 f. (Murray, 1923).

222 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 0

authorities, Mark and Q; and, since Q is all but confined to
discourse, Mark alone is left as a primary authority for the Life.
If, however, the conclusions of this chapter are sound we must
recognise in Proto-Luke the existence of another authority
comparable to Mark. It is true that Proto-Luke.is of later
date than Q, but in all probability so is Mark. The essential
point is that Proto-Luke is independent of Mark. Where the
two are parallel it would seem that Proto-Luke is sometimes
inferior in historical value (e.g. in the details of the Call of Peter),
sometimes superior (e.g. the addition of an account of the trial
before Herod). Neither Mark nor Proto-Luke are infallible ;
but as historical authorities they should probably be regarded
as on the whole of approximately equal value. But, if so, this
means that far more weight will have to be given by the historian
in the future to the Third Gospel, and in particular to those
portions of it which are peculiar to itself.

ADDITIONAL NOTE

Appended is a list of passages most probably assigned to
Proto-Luke: Lk. ii. l-iv. 30; iv. 14-15; v. 1-11; vi. 14-16;
vi. 20-vilil. 3; ix. 51-xvil. 14; xix. 1-27; xix. 37-44; xxi.
18, 34-36; xxii. 14 to end of the Gospel, except for the
verses derived from Mark the identification of which is very
problematical.

The following are probably from Mark: xxii. 18, 22, 42, 46f.,
52-62,171; xxiii. 3, 22, 25 f., 33-34b, 38, 44-46, 52f.; xxiv. 6.

The following may be derived from Mark, or represent
Proto-Luke partially assimilated to the Marcan parallel: xxii.
69; xxii. 35, 49, 51; xxiv. 1-3, 9 f.

1 But xxii. 62 is probably not genuine, being an assimilation to Matthew,
om. Old Lat. Similarly xxiv. 6a, and the words ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου xXiv. 9, are

omitted by D Old Lat. It is notable that all three omissions reduce the extent
of Luke’s debt to Mark.

ΙΧ
A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS

SYNOPSIS

Unconscious ASSUMPTIONS

Three unconscious assumptions which have led to a misinterpreta-
tion of the available evidence.

(1) The name “ Two Document Hypothesis”’ suggests that no
other sources used by Matthew and Luke are comparable to the
“ Big Two.” Hence an undue importance has been assigned to Q
as compared with the sources used by Matthew or Luke only.

(2) It is assumed that a hypothesis which reduces the number of
sources to a minimum is more scientific.

(3) It is taken for granted that the same saying is not likely to
have been reported by more than one independent authority.

But a plurality of sources is historically more probable. In
particular, if Mark is the old Roman Gospel, it is antecedently to be
expected that the other Gospels conserve the specific traditions of
Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Antioch.

᾽

JERUSALEM, CAESAREA, AND ANTIOCH

A priori probabilities in regard to the traditions of these Churches.

The non-Marcan matter in Luke has been analysed further into
at least two sources, Q and L; similarly we may expect to find
that Matthew used a peculiar source, which we may style M, as well
as Q.

The Judaistic character of much of the material in M suggests a
Jerusalem origin. L has already been assigned to Caesarea. Q may
be connected with Antioch. Most probably Q is an Antiochene
translation of a document originally composed in Aramaic—perhaps
by the Apostle Matthew for Galilean Christians.

On this view our first Gospel is a combination of the traditions of

223

224 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome, while the third Gospel represents
Caesarea, Antioch, and Rome. The fact that the Antiochene and
Roman sources are reproduced by both Matthew and Luke is due
to the importance of the Churches ; it is no evidence that the other
sources are less authentic.

Although, however, historical considerations favour a Four
Document Hypothesis, the verification of the hypothesis must depend
entirely on the results of a critical study of the documents apart from
any theory as to the geographical affiliation of any particular
source.

THE THEORY OF TWO RECENSIONS OF Q

It has already been recognised by critics that the Two Document
Hypothesis in its simplest form has broken down. The theory of
two recensions of Q, designated as Q™“* and Q™, has been put
forward to meet the difficulty. But on examination this theory is
seen, not to solve, but to disguise, the problem by an ambiguity latent
in the symbols used.

PARALLEL VERSIONS

General considerations as to the extent and ways in which
collections of savings or parables, though made independently, would
nevertheless inevitably overlap.

Evidence from non-Canonical sources as to the existence of
independent parallel versions of sayings of Christ.

THE OVERLAPPING OF SOURCES

Three clear cases of this in the Gospels. (1) Mark and Q. (2)
Mark and L. (3) The collections of Parables in Matthew and Luke.

Evidence that the versions of the Lost Sheep found in Matthew
and Luke were drawn from two different sources; a fortiori this
holds good of the Marriage Feast and the Talents.

All analogies, then, suggest that Q and M would overlap.

MatrHEew’s Metuop or CoNFLATION

The meticulous way in which Matthew conflates his sources
illustrated by a study of two examples where he is combining Mark
and Q.

This compels us to formulate a new principle of Synoptic criticism:
“ Wherever parallel passages of Matthew and Luke show substantial
divergence, editorial modification is a less probable explanation than
conflation by Matthew of the language of Q with that of some other
version.”

CH. IX A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 225

THe SERMON ON THE Mount

In view of the evidence as to overlapping of sources and Matthew’s
method of conflation set out in the two preceding sections, we may
now test the hypothesis that Q and M overlapped.

The Sermon on the Mount is a conflation of a discourse in Q
(approximately represented by Luke’s Sermon on the Plain) and a
discourse from M which happened to begin with a series of Beatitudes
—very different in detail from those in Q—and to contain a divergent
version of ‘‘ Love your Enemies” and a few other sayings. Into
this conflated discourse Matthew has introduced some additional
fragments of Ὁ which Luke ves in his Central Section, presumably
in their original context.

The Woes to the Pharisees, Mt. xxiii., is probably another case
of conflation by Matthew of discourses in Q and M which had certain
points of contact—Luke’s version again being nearer to Q.

JUDAISTIC TENDENCY oF M

The question must be faced, did the Judaistic sayings in Matthew
stand originally in Q, being omitted by Luke owing to his pro-
Gentile proclivities, or are they to be assigned to M? Reasons for
choosing the latter alternative.

OVERLAPPING OF Mark anp M

Three passages in Matthew, in the main clearly derived from
Mark, contain certain added details of a specially interesting char-
acter. Possibility that these were derived from a parallel version
in M.

THE Great Discourses or Matrarw

Evidence that the five great discourses of Matthew are agglomera-
tions by the editor of the Gospel, and do not correspond to colloca-
tions of the material in an older source.

THe Inrancy NARRATIVES

The first two chapters of Matthew are probably derived from oral
sources, but the corresponding section in Luke is more likely to have
been found by him in a written document, possibly Hebrew.

Some points of textual criticism bearing on the evidence for the
Virgin Birth.

226 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. Τί

CoNCLUSION

The Four Document Hypothesis, besides explaining a number
of facts which are not accounted for by the Two Document
Hypothesis, materially broadens the basis of evidence for the
authentic teaching of Christ.

N.B.—The Diagram: The Synoptics and their Sources (p. 150
above) should be referred to in connection with this chapter.

CHAPTER Ix

A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS

Unconscious ASSUMPTIONS

Tue psychologists are all warning us of the peril of the “ uncon-
scious motive.” It is against “‘ unconscious assumptions ”’ that
critics of the Gospels most need to be on their guard.

(1) It is unfortunate that the name “Two Document
Hypothesis’ should have been given to the theory that the
authors of the First and Third Gospels made use of Mark and Q,
for it conceals the unconscious assumption that they used no other
documents, or, at least, none of anything like the same value
as the “Big Two.” Hence a quite illusory pre-eminence has
been ascribed to the document Q in comparison with the sources
for our Lord’s teaching made use of by Matthew or by Luke
alone. To this illusion I must confess that I have been myself
for many years a victim. The idea has grown up that it is just
a little discreditable to any saying of our Lord if it cannot be
traced to Q. Immense efforts are accordingly made to extend
the boundaries of Q as much as possible—as if a sentence of
exclusion from this document meant branding the excluded
saying with a reputation of doubtful historicity. Much of what
is clearly authentic teaching of Christ—quite half of the Sermon
on the Mount, for instance—is found in only one Gospel. An
effort, then, must be made to get all this material somehow or
other assigned to Q; and ingenious motives must be discovered

to explain why the other evangelists omitted it. Once, however,
227

228 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

the “unconscious assumption ” of some special superiority of 9
is brought up into the daylight of clear consciousness, a moment’s
consideration will show that it is wholly baseless. One has
only to mention the fact that hardly any of the parables are
found in Q to realise that a large part of the most obviously
genuine, original, and characteristic teaching of our Lord is
derived, not from Q, but from sources peculiar to Matthew or
Luke. The Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Pharisee
and the Publican, are peculiar to Luke; the Labourers in the
Vineyard, the Pearl of Great Price, are given by Matthew alone.
There cannot be the slightest presumption that a source which
lacked such material as this is a more reliable authority than
those which contained it.

Some scholars, indeed, have been so far hypnotised by the
prestige of Q that, from the possible absence from Q of the longer
narrative parables, they have drawn the conclusion that such
parables formed no part of the original teaching of our Lord
but are developments in later tradition, though probably in
some cases being expansions of shorter authentic sayings.
Nothing could be more absurd. Our Lord was above all a
popular teacher; it was the common people who heard Him
gladly. But everybody knows that a story told vividly and in
detail is the one thing most likely to attract the attention and
to remain in the memory of a popular audience. A friend once
said to me, “ You can preach the same sermon as often as you
like, provided you don’t repeat your illustrations ; but tell the
same story twice, and, even if the rest of your sermon is on a
totally different topic, people will say that you repeat yourself.”
If one considers the teaching of Christ from the standpoint of
the psychology of everyday life and not of academic theory,
it is obvious that the parables, and that in their most graphic
and least curtailed form, such as we find in Luke, are just
the element most likely to belong to the earliest stratum of
tradition. Why the author of Q included so few (or, possibly,
none at all) of them, we cannot say, any more than we can say

cH. Ix A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 229

for certain why he did not include an account of the Passion.
Probably the reason for both omissions was the same. He
wrote to supplement, not to supersede, a living oral tradition.
Both the longer parables and the Passion story were easy to
remember, and every one knew them; and what he was most
concerned to write down was something which was either less
well known or easier to forget.

(2) Another equally misleading assumption, again more or less
unconscious, has been the idea that antecedent probability is in
favour of a hypothesis which so far as possible reduces the
number of sources used by Matthew and Luke, and minimises
the extent and importance of the sources of material peculiar to
one Gospel. This is due to a confusion of thought. Since
Matthew and Luke appear to have written in churches in every
way far removed from one another, that hypothesis is the
most plausible which postulates the smallest number of sources
used by them im common. But that same removedness only
increases the likelihood that each had access to sources not
known to the other, outside the two (Mark and Q) which they
concur in using.

(3) There is yet a third false assumption current—that it is
improbable that the same or similar incidents or sayings should
have been recorded in more than one source, and that, there-
fore, if the versions given by Matthew and Luke respectively
of any item differ considerably, this is to be attributed to
editorial modification. On the contrary, given the existence of
independent reports of the sayings of a great teacher, these
would inevitably overlap and would sometimes give almost
identical, at other times widely different, versions of the same
saying. The overlooking of this consideration has had fatal
effects on Synoptic criticism.

One reason why these erroneous assumptions have held sway
so long is that the Synoptic Problem has been studied merely
as a problem of literary criticism apart from a consideration
of the historical conditions under which the Gospels were

230 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT, I

produced, A factor of cardinal importance has been ignored—
the preponderating influence of the great Churches in the deter-
mination of the thought and literature of primitive Christianity.
Mark, says an ancient and probably authentic tradition, was
written in Rome—a long way from Palestine. But Jerusalem
and Caesarea, the two great Palestinian Churches, and Antioch,
the original headquarters of the Gentile Mission, must each have
had a cycle of tradition of its own. It is in the last degree
improbable that the characteristic traditions of any of these
three Churches have completely disappeared. It is far more
likely that, in one form or another, they are incorporated in
the Gospels which were ultimately accepted as exclusively
canonical by the Church at large. Thus traces of at least
three different cycles of tradition, besides the material derived
from Mark, are what antecedently we should expect a critical
examination of Matthew and Luke to reveal.

JERUSALEM, CAESAREA, AND ANTIOCH

Accordingly, before entering upon a critical examination
of actual documents, it will be worth while to consider the
historical probabilities in regard to the collection and trans-
mission of sayings of our Lord by Christians of the first
generation.

In Jerusalem it is on the whole likely that the sayings would
for some considerable time be handed down in oral tradition
after the manner of the sayings of the Rabbis, and that in
the original Aramaic. But in the Greek-speaking Churches a
beginning would be made at writing them down almost at once.
Collections of sayings regarded as specially valuable for the
instruction of converts would very soon be formed in various
Churches. But the Churches of Antioch and Caesarea are those
where we should expect to find not only the earliest, but also
the most considerable and the most valuable, collections written

OH, IX A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 231

in the Greek language. For these were the first Gentile Churches
to be founded, and also, from their geographical position, were
peculiarly well situated for procuring authentic material. Indeed
both these Churches had been visited by Peter himself at a
very early date. But sooner or later—possibly not till the
flight of Christians to Pella just before the final siege—the
Jerusalem collection also would be committed to writing. Once
that was done, it would sooner or later reach Antioch or Caesarea,
and a Greek translation of it would be made and so become
available to the Gentiie Churches. The antecedent probabilities,
then, are that there would be at least three considerable collec-
tions of the teaching of Christ, associated with the Churches of
Jerusalem, Antioch, and Caesarea. The Church of Jerusalem
was for a time “knocked out” by the Jewish War. But
Antioch and Caesarea were sufficiently influential to secure
that the traditions which they specially valued did not com-
pletely disappear. They were also Churches to which those
who wished for authentic information about our Lord could
readily resort.

Supporters of the Two Document Hypothesis usually assign
to Q the bulk of the discourse material in Matthew, apart from
the longer parables. This involves as a corollary either that
Luke has made very drastic omissions from Q or else that
Matthew used an expanded edition Q™*—a hypothesis to which
I adduce objections below, p. 235 ff. But in view of the a priori
probability of there being three cycles of tradition available
besides that of Mark, I would suggest the simple hypothesis
that, just as Luke ultimately goes back to at least. two sources
besides Mark, viz. Q and L, so it is with Matthew. Provisionally
I will assign to Matthew’s third source all discourse peculiar to
Matthew, and also that part of the material usually assigned to Q
which differs so much from its Lucan parallels as to have
suggested the need for the Q™* hypothesis; retaining Q as the
name of the source of the close parallels only. This third source
of Matthew it will be convenient to call M.

232 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 0

The material peculiar to Matthew, in sharp contrast to Luke’s,
is characterised by a conspicuously Jewish atmosphere; and,
though rich in anti-Pharisaic polemic, it asserts the obligation
of obeying not only the Law but “the tradition of the scribes,”
and it has a distinctly anti-Gentile bias. It reflects the spirit
and outlook with which in the New Testament the name of
James is associated ; though James himself, like most leaders,
was doubtless far less extreme than his professed followers. The
source M will naturally be connected with Jerusalem, the head-
quarters of the James party.

The Caesarean tradition, we naturally surmise, has survived
by its incorporation in the Third Gospel. The reasons for con-
necting Luke’s special source L with Caesarea have been given
above (p. 218 f.) and need not be repeated.

Antioch, then, remains as a possible place for the origin of Q.
In the Ozford Studies I suggested a Palestinian origin, with
the probability that the Apostle Matthew was its author.! The
two suggestions are not in the slightest degree incompatible.
The source Q, with which the student of the Synoptic Problem
is concerned, is a Greek document which the authors of the
First and Third Gospels had in common, and the fact that this
Greek document was known to the authors of both these Gospels
means that it probably came to them with the backing of the
Church of some important Greek city. But that is no reason
why it may not have been a translation of an Aramaic work
by Matthew—possibly with some amplification from local
tradition. What became of the Twelve Apostles is one of the
mysteries of history. The resident head of the Jerusalem
Church was, not one of the Twelve, but James the brother of
the Lord. From Galatians and Acts we should gather that to

11 also suggested that Mark was written for a Church that already
possessed a collection of Christ’s sayings and desired a biography to supple-
ment it. The suggestion, I still think, is worth consideration, although the
conclusion there drawn that this collection must have been Q was too hasty.
Why should it not have been the local Roman collection of sayings from
which Clement seems to ‘quote ? Cf. p. 240 n.

OH. IX A FOUR. DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 233

Peter and the sons of Zebedee Jerusalem was for a time a kind
of headquarters. But in regard to the rest there is no tradition
which, either from its early date or its intrinsic probability,
deserves credence. But we know from the Rabbis that for
many centuries Capernaum was a great centre for “ Minim”’
or Christians, so that it is probable that others of the Twelve
made that city their headquarters. Geographically Capernaum
is between Antioch and Jerusalem, and some Christian trader
from Antioch having business at Capernaum, or in some city of
Decapolis, may well have come across a collection of sayings
made by Matthew and brought it home.

The hypothesis that Q emanated from the (perhaps, freer)
atmosphere of Galilee and became the primitive “gospel” of a
Gentile Church, like Antioch, accounts for its inclusion of the
saying (Lk. xvi. 16, Mt. xi. 13), “The law and the prophets
were until John.” It also explains at once the puzzling fact
that in a document, otherwise apparently entirely confined to
discourse, there should have stood the one single narrative of
the Centurion’s Servant. That story leads up to, and gives
the facts that called forth from Christ, the saying, “I have not
found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” At a time when the
Judaising section of the Church wished to give the uncircumcised
an inferior status, that story was in itself a charter of Gentile
liberty.

The Greek translation of Q, at any rate, must. have been
made for the use of a Greek Church, and since, if we regard
the material peculiar to Luke as representing the tradition of
Caesarea, that city is ruled out, Antioch, the first capital of
Gentile Christianity, is the most likely place of origin. In
Ch. XVII. I shall give reasons for supposing that our Gospel
of Matthew was written in Antioch. There is also, for what
it is worth, a tradition, found in Eusebius and in the Latin
Prologues to the Gospels, which has some support in the
occurrence in D, etc., of a ‘we section,’ Acts xi. 27, that
Luke was by descent a Syrian of Antioch. I should not care

234 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT Π.

to lay much weight on either of these considerations as evidence
for connecting Q with Antioch, but so far as they go they are
in favour of the connection.

If the suggestions put forward above be accepted, it would
follow that Matthew’s Gospel represents a combination of the
primitive “ gospels”? of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome; while
Luke’s is ultimately based on these of Caesarea, Antioch, and
Rome. Either of these combinations would be eminently
reasonable from the point of view of the authors of the Gospel
who would naturally set the highest value on sources so weightily
authenticated. The hypothesis would also explain both why
these Gospels seem never to have any serious competitors in
the Church, and why so little of authentic tradition survives
outside the canonical Four. Since the specifically Ephesian
tradition may be supposed to be reproduced in John, there
did not exist anywhere any considerable body of tradition
authenticated by any important Church which was not repre-
sented in one of the Four Gospels.

But if this view is correct it means that the Roman and the
Antiochene sources are made use of twice over. In view of the
prestige and wide influence of these two Churches this is not
surprising. But the historian must realise that the fact that
Mark and Q were used by the editors of two later Gospels does
not create any presumption that, because a thing occurs in Mark
or in Q, the historical evidence for it is twice as strong as if it
occurred once only either in the Jerusalem or in the Caesarean
tradition. And this last consideration, I would observe, is not
substantially affected, supposing that the scheme of connection
between the several sources and particular churches which I
have suggested is not exactly correct. All that I wish to press
is the broad principle that a plurality of sources is antecedently
probable, and the fact that the relative historical value of a
source is not increased by the number of times it is copied.

I suggest, then, that we should, provisionally at any rate,
abandon, not the theory that Matthew and Luke made use

CH, ΙΧ A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 235

of Mark and Q, but the conception of a “ Two Document
Hypothesis’; and explore the possibilities of substituting for
it that ‘‘ Four Document Hypothesis” which from the stand-
point of historical probability seems to have far more to
recommend it.

A Four Document Hypothesis has claims to investigation
quite apart from the theory as to the geographical affiliations
of particular sources suggested above. To avoid, therefore,
‘complicating critical with geographical questions, I shall for the
rest of this chapter use the symbol M for the source of the
discourse and parables peculiar to Matthew; but, for reasons
which will be obvious to any student of the Synoptic Problem,
I shall not use it to include any narrative peculiar to Matthew.
M and Q will be of much the same length. There are eight
parables (=59 verses) peculiar to Matthew—not including the
Lost Sheep, the Marriage Feast, and the Talents (=34 verses)
—to which must be added approximately 140 verses of discourse
of the same character as the bulk of Q. The passages which
Hawkins reckons as probably belonging to Q (he includes the
parables of the Lost Sheep and Talents but not the Marriage
Feast) total a little less than 200 verses. Thus, if we assign
the bulk of the discourse and parables peculiar to Matthew to
M, we have a document quite as considerable in extent as Q.
This, however, is merely a matter of arithmetic; the points on
which our argument will turn are: (1) the evidence that M
and Q to some extent overlapped ; (2) the Judaistic character
of the source M.

THe THEORY OF TWO RECENSIONS OF Q

The “ Two Document Hypothesis,” so far as it concerns the
non-Marcan element in Matthew and Luke, has broken down.
But the breakdown has been concealed by the hypothesis that
Matthew and Luke made use of two different recensions of Q
which have been styled respectively Q™* and Q'*:. The most

296 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

thoroughgoing and scientific attempt to work out this distinction
in detail which has come into my hands is by an American
scholar, Mr. C. S. Patton.1 The idea of two recensions of Q is
at first sight attractive; but the moment one attempts to
visualise to one’s mind’s eye the exact kind of documents implied
by the symbols Q™* and ΟἿ", its attractiveness begins to wane.
The symbol Q, by itself, stands for a perfectly definite concept
—a written document from which both Matthew and Luke
made copious extracts with some slight amount of editorial
change. Also—since Matthew and Luke each omit some passages
from Mark which the other retains, and may be presumed to
have treated Q in the same way—it is legitimate to suppose
that Q contained certain passages that occur only in one Gospel,
so long as we recollect that the identification of these can never
be more than a “ skilful guess.” But to what definite concept
do the symbols Q™* or Q**: correspond ?

These symbols are intended to imply two things: (1) That
the document Q did not reach the authors of the First and Third
Gospels in its original form, but with extensive interpolations
—the interpolations in Matthew’s copy being quite different
from those in Luke’s. We note, however, that each of these
sets of interpolations is as considerable in extent as the original
Q to which they are supposed to have been added. And since
the additions in Matthew’s copy are quite different from those
in Luke’s, their respective additions must have been derived
from two totally different cycles of tradition. It follows that
at least one, and probably both, of these cycles must have
emanated from a locality or informant different from that of the
cycle embodied in the original Q. We are forced, then, to assume
the existence of at least one, and probably two, cycles of tradition
besides Q. But, if so, what presumption is there that the
material preserved in these other cycles reached Matthew and
Luke attached to Q and not in independent sources? (2) The
symbols Q™* and Q™: are mainly intended to meet the difficulty
i]

1 Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, Tho Macmillan Company, New York, 1915.

CH. IX A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 237

that some of the parallels between Matthew and Luke—the two
versions of the Beatitudes, for instance—are so inexact that it
is not possible to suppose that Matthew and Luke derived them
from the same written source. Now if the symbols Q™" and Ql":
were meant to stand for two related but divergent versions of
an oral tradition still in a fluid state, they would be illuminating.
But they do not mean this; they stand for documents. The
fallacy is obvious. Q itself is held to be a written document,
because the verbal resemblances between the majority of the
parallels between Matthew and Luke are so close as to demand
for their explanation the fixity of writing in the common source.
But if there are certain passages found in both Matthew and
Luke (the Beatitudes or the Lord’s Prayer, for example) where
the verbal differences between the two versions are so great that
they cannot reasonably be supposed to be copied from the
same written source, then the only legitimate inference is that
one, or possibly both, of these items were not derived from the
same written source to which we have referred the closer
parallels. But, if they were not derived from the same document,
they must either have come from oral tradition or from a different
document. A saying which occurs only in Matthew may possibly
have stood in Q and have been omitted by Luke; but where
a saying occurs in both Matthew and Luke, but Matthew’s
version is so different from Luke’s that the difference cannot
be explained as merely editorial, we have clear proof that at
least one of the two versions did not stand in the common
source.

The fact we have to explain is the occurrence in Matthew
and Luke of two sets of parallelism, one set in which the verbal
resemblances are so close as to favour, if not actually compel,
the conclusion that they were derived from a common written
source, and another set in which the divergences are so great
that they cannot be explained in that way. And this distinction
is not affected by the existence of border-line cases which would
be susceptible of either explanation. This two-sided fact is

298 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 0

precisely what constitutes the problem we have to solve; and
the symbols Q™* and Q™: are discovered on analysis to be merely
a means of covering up the phenomena to be explained. Scholars
like Mr. Patton have done very valuable service in proving that
a number of the parallels cannot be referred to Q. But Q is Q,
a document which can be clearly conceived. Q™* is “Q with a |
difference”; and it may turn out on examination that the
difference is just the thing that matters. It may be hard to
decide in certain cases whether editorial modification of a
saying in Q will or will not account for the differences between
the form in which it occurs in Matthew and Luke; but in the
last resort we must choose between Q and not-Q. We cannot
fall back on Q™* and ΟἿ" as a kind of Limbo for innocent sayings
unfortunately disqualified from entering Q.

PARALLEL VERSIONS

Wherever the sayings and doings of a remarkable person
are preserved in the memory of his followers, different versions
of what is substantially the same matter soon become current.
If at a later date different individuals in different places con-
ceive the idea of setting down in writing the most interesting
or important of the incidents and sayings which they either
remember or can collect from others, four things will inevitably
follow. (1) With each writer the total range of incidents and
sayings available will be different ; but so also will be the principle
in accordance with which each selects from the available material
what seems to him of special interest. (2) Hach selection will,
therefore, be to a large extent a different one; on the other
hand, it would be nothing short of a miracle if the difference
were so great that in no case did the same incident or discourse
occur in more than one selection. (3) Where the same item
occurs in more than one selection, sometimes it will occur in
both in substantially the same form; sometimes two versions
will develop which, in the vagaries of oral tradition, will

CH, IX A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 239

become considerably differentiated. (4) The sayings having the
most universal appeal will be likely to appear in more than
one source, and also in the most divergent versions. This
last phenomenon is a notable feature of the Gospels. A
comparatively unimportant discourse, like John the Baptist’s
denunciation of the Pharisees, occurs word for word the same
in both Matthew and in Luke, and presumably, therefore,
stood in Q, but probably in no other source. But things of
outstanding interest like the Beatitudes, the Lord’s Prayer, the
Lost Sheep, the teaching about Loving Enemies, Forgiveness,
or the Strait Gate, are given in strikingly different forms. These
then, we infer, stood in at least two sources, and circulated
widely in more than one version.

From this it follows that we start out on our investigation
with the a priort assumption that we are likely to find numerous
cases where the same or similar material stood in more than
one source. The assumption is one which justifies itself at
once. We cannot move a step without running up against
evidence for a considerable amount of overlapping of sources.
Indeed, blindness to the evidence for the phenomenon of
overlapping sources—a blindness artificially induced by the
“unconscious assumptions ” implied in the “‘ Two Document ”
nomenclature—has, more than anything else, retarded a satis-
factory solution to the Synoptic Problem.

The existence of parallel traditions is conspicuous the
moment we study the evidence of the non-canonical sources of
parables or sayings of our Lord.

(a) I print in a footnote the passage from the Epistle of
Clement (xiii. 1 f.), to which I have already referred, with the
nearest parallels in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and Luke’s
Sermon on the Plain. In view of the express formula of quota-
tion with which Clement introduces the words, it is difficult to
believe that it is merely a free rendering of the general sub-
stance of mingled reminiscences of Matthew and Luke combined.
But, if they are a quotation, they are evidence of the existence

240 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 0

in the Church of Rome of a discourse document to some extent
parallel to the Great Sermon in Matthew and Luke.

(6) The relation of the Gospel according to the Hebrews to
that of Matthew is a question that has been much disputed.
But we know that it contained a version of the parable of the
Talents (with details not unlike parts of the Prodigal Son) and
of the injunction “ Forgive seven times ” (cf. p. 282). It also
gave variant versions of the Healing of the Withered Hand and
of the story of the Rich Young Man. The resemblances and
differences between these and the Synoptic versions can only
be explained by the theory of overlapping between the sources
of this Gospel and those of the Synoptics. Even if we accept
the theory that the document quoted by Jerome was a trans-
lation into Aramaic of the Greek Matthew, we must still assume
that the text has been influenced by interpolation of parallel

versions of these particular sayings current in oral tradition.?

1 Clem. xiii. 1 f.

μάλιστα μεμνημένοι τῶν
λόγων τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ
obs ἐλάλησεν διδάσκων ἐπι-
εἰκειαν καὶ μακροθυμίαν.
οὕτως γὰρ εἶπεν.

Ἐλεᾶτε ἵνα ἐλεηθῆτε,
ἀφίετε ἵνα ἀφεθῇ ὑμῖν"
ὡς ποιεῖτε, οὕτω ποιη-
θήσεται ὑμῖν" ὡς δίδοτε,
οὕτως δοθήσεται ὑμῖν" ὡς
κρίνετε, οὕτως κριθήσεσθε"'

οὕτως
ὑμῖν: ᾧ
μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, ἐν αὐτῷ
μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.

ὡς χρηστεύεσθε,
χρηστευθήσεται

Matt. ν. 7, etc.

v. 7. μακάριοι οἱ ἐλεή-
μονες᾽ ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθή-
σονται.

vi. 14. ἐὰν γὰρ ἀφῆτε
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παρα-
πτώματα αὐτῶν, ἀφήσει
καὶ ὑμῖν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ
οὐράνιος" ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀφῆτε
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παρα-
οὐδὲ ὁ
πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἀφήσει τὰ
παραπτώματα ὑμῶν.

vii. 1. μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα
μὴ κριθῆτε' ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρί-
ματι κρίνετε, κριθήσεσθε"
καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε
μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.

vii. 12. πάντα οὖν ὅσα

πτώματα αὐτῶν,

ἂν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν
οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς
ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς" οὗτος γάρ
ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προ-
φῆται.

Luke vi. 31, 36-38.

vi. 36-38. γίνεσθε olx-
Tlppoves, καθὼς ὁ πατὴρ
ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστί. καὶ
μὴ κρίνετε καὶ οὐ μὴ κρι-
θῆτε; καὶ μὴ καταδικάζετε,
καὶ οὐ μὴ καταδικασθῆτε.
ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθή-
σεσθε" δίδοτε, καὶ δοθή-
σεται ὑμῖν" μέτρον καλόν,
πεπιεσμένον, σεσαλευμένον
ὑπερεκχυνόμενον, δώσου-
ow eis τὸν κόλπον ὑμῶν.
ᾧ γὰρ μέτῥῳ μετρεῖτε,
ἀντιμετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.

vi. 31. καὶ καθὼς θέλετε
ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἄνθρω-
ποι, καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε av-
τοῖς ὁμοίως.

3 The relevant passages from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, from

CH, IX A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 241

(c) The same kind of evidence is afforded by two very
ancient interpolations in the text of Matthew. In the Western
text, after Mt. xx. 28, is inserted a parallel version of the saying
about taking the best seats at banquets which is recorded in
Lk. xiv. 8 f. An exactly similar “‘ Western ᾿᾿ insertion is the
saying “Signs of the times,’ Mt. xvi. 2-3. This, though
found in most later MSS. and included in the Textus Receptus,
stands, so far as the early authorities for the text are concerned,
on practically the same footing. Both passages are found in
Ὁ Old Lat. ; while the support for ‘ Signs of the times’ by C L
and the Eusebian canons is of no more weight than that of
Φ Syr. (C and Hel™®) for the addition to Mt. xx. 28. Both seem
to have been lacking in the oldest Alexandrian, Caesarean, and
Antiochene text, being absent from fam. Θ, Syr. S., and Origen’s
Commentary on Matthew, as well as from Β ἃ. But the point
I wish to make is that these passages are not harmonistic
insertions derived from the text of Luke. For if a later scribe,
who had Luke before him, had desired to insert equivalent sayings
in Matthew, he would have adhered far more closely to Luke’s
version. The passages are printed below in a footnote.1 One

2 Clement, and, with one exception, from the Oxyrhynchus Logia, are printed
at length in the article “ Agrapha” in the supplementary volume of Hastings’
Dictionary of the Bible.

1 Matt. xvi. 2-3. Luke xii. 54-57.
Om. BX Syr. S. and C. Arm. Orig.Mt.
Olas γενομένης λέγετε Evdla, πυρ- Ὅταν ἴδητε νεφέλην ἀνατέλλουσαν ἐπὶ

pager γὰρ ὁ οὐρανός" καὶ πρωί Σήμερον δυσμῶν, εὐθέως λέγετε ὅτι Ομβρος

χειμών, πυρράζει γὰρ στυγνάξων ὁ οὐ- ἔρχεται, καὶ γίνεται οὕτως" καὶ ὅταν

ρανός. τὸ μὲν πρόσωπον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ νότον πνέοντα, λέγετε ὅτι Καύσων ἔσται,

γινώσκετε διακρίνειν, τὰ δὲ σημεῖα τῶν καὶ γίνεται. ὑποκριταί, τὸ πρόσωπον

καιρῶν οὐ δύνασθε. τῆς γῆς καὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οἴδατε δοκιμάζειν,
τὸν καιρὸν δὲ τοῦτον πῶς οὐκ οἴδατε
δοκιμάζειν, Τί δὲ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν οὐ
κρίνετε τὸ δίκαιον ;

Matt. xx. 28. Luke xiv. 8-10.
Add. D Φ Old Lat. Syr. C. Helm:
ὑμεῖς δὲ ζητεῖτε ἐκ μικροῦ αὐξῆσαι καὶ Ὅταν κληθῇς ὑπό τινος εἰς γάμους, μὴ
ἐκ μείζονος ἔλαττον εἶναι. εἰσερχόμενοι κατακλιθῇς εἰς τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν, μή ποτε
δὲ καὶ παρακληθέντις δειπνῆσαι μὴ ἀνα- ἐντιμότερός σου ἢ κεκλημένος Ux’ αὐτοῦ,

242 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 1

has only to read them through side by side to see that the verbal
agreements between the two versions are almost nil, and can
only be accounted for on the hypothesis that the interpolations
are drawn from a tradition independent of Luke. Probably they
are excerpts from the primitive discourse document of the local
Church in which the interpolator worked. The MS. evidence
would favour the view that both readings originated in Rome.
In that case they may well be fragments of the same document
or catechetical tradition from which Clement quotes.

(4) The Oxyrhynchus Logia contain some sayings of our
Lord which have a close resemblance to sayings found in the
Gospels, and others which exhibit a remarkable combination of
resemblance and divergence. The definite citations of words
of Christ in the second century homily known as II. Clement
exhibit the same phenomena of versions of sayings more or less
parallel to those contained in the Canonical Gospels. Some
scholars think the sayings preserved in the Oxyrhynchus Logia
and by 2 Clement are all from the same lost Gospel—“ according
to the Egyptians ”’ or “‘ according to the Hebrews.” If so, they
prove that the sources of that Gospel to a considerable extent
overlapped with those of the Synoptics. If, on the other hand,
the sayings in question come from more than one lost document,
the evidence for parallel traditions is further multiplied.

THE OVERLAPPING OF SOURCES

Let us now, from the standpoint of this evidence, re-examine
certain phenomena in the Canonical Gospels.
(1) It has long been recognised that Q and Mark to some

κλίνεσθε els τοὺς ἐξέχοντας τόπους, μήποτε
ἐνδοξότερός σου ἐπέλθῃ καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ
δειπνοκλήτωρ εἴπῃ σοι, "Ere κάτω χώρει,
καὶ καταισχυνθήσῃ. ἐὰν δὲ ἀναπέσης εἰς
τὸν ἥττονα τόπον καὶ ἐπέλθῃ σου ἥττων,
ἐρεῖ σοι ὁ δειπνοκλήτωρ, Σύναγε ἔτι ἄνω,
καὶ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο χρήσιμον.

καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ σὲ καὶ αὐτὸν καλέσας ἐρεῖ σοι
Δὸς τούτῳ τύπον, καὶ τότε ἄρξῃ μετὰ
αἰσχύνης τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον κατέχειν.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν κληθῇς πορευθεὶς ἀνάπεσε εἰς
τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον, ἵνα ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ κε-
κληκώς σε ἐρεῖ σοι Φίλε, προσανάβηθι
ἀνώτερον" τότε ἔσται σοι δόξα ἐνώπιον
πάντων τῶν συνανακειμένων σοι.

OH. Ix A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 243

extent overlap. The question whether in these passages Mark
is directly or indirectly dependent on Q has been discussed
above (p. 187 ff.), and the conclusion was reached that it is
more probable that Mark and Q represent two independent
traditions.

(2) We have also seen that there is similar overlapping
between Mark and the narrative material in the source L, since
Luke evidently had before him versions of the Rejection at
Nazareth, the Call of Peter, the Anointing, and of the whole
story of the Passion, which on the whole he preferred to the
accounts which he found in Mark.

(3) A third clear case of overlapping is seen in the parables
of Matthew and Luke. It is sometimes doubtful whether we
ought to call a particular saying a short parable or an extended
illustration, but taking the list on p. 332 plus those named here
we count fifteen parables in Matthew and twenty-three in
Luke. Two of these, the Sower and the Wicked Husbandmen,
are derived from Mark;1 two more, the Mustard Seed and
Leaven, certainly stood in Q. There remain to be accounted
for two collections of parables—though, of course, in speaking
of them as “ collections ” I do not wish to imply that they were
derived from different sources from the rest of the peculiar
matter in the Gospels where they occur. These collections
number respectively eleven and nineteen. But they overlap
to the extent of three parables, since each collection includes a
version of the Lost Sheep, the Marriage Feast (=the Great
Supper),? and the Talents (=Pounds). But though these three
parables occur in both Matthew and Luke, they do so in such
very different forms that the supposition that they were derived

1 The Mustard Seed, of course, stands in Mark as well as Q.

2 Matthew’s Marriage Feast (the King’s Son) (xxii. 1 ff.) is really two
parables. Verse 2, or words to that effect, has evidently been omitted before
verse 11. Repeat verse 2 here, and verses 11-14 are seen to form the second
half of one of those pairs of “twin parables ” enforcing a different aspect of the
same general moral, so characteristic of our Lord’s teaching. Without such

emendation the second half is pointless. How could the man, just swept in
from the highways, be expected to have on a wedding garment ?

244 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. Π'

from Q postulates too large an amount of editorial manipula-
tion of that source.

But the ingenuity that attempts to derive them from a
single written source is wholly misdirected. Given that two
different persons set about collecting parables of our Lord, and
that one of them succeeded in finding eleven and the other as
many as nineteen. Would it not be an astounding circumstance
if the two collectors never happened to light upon the same
parable ? The remarkable thing is, not that the two collections
have three parables in common, but that they have only
three.

Thirteen years ago I myself, under the malign influence of the
“unconscious assumptions” of the Two Document Hypothesis,
argued that these three parables occurred in 9.1: But one day,
while I was meditating on the curious fact that the moral which
Matthew draws from the parable of the Lost Sheep is quite
different from that drawn by Luke, it occurred to me that this
is precisely what one would expect if the two versions had been
handed down in two different traditions. People so often
remember a story or an illustration, but forget the point it
was told to illustrate. Then I turned to Harnack’s famous
reconstruction of Q.2 I found that, in order to derive both
versions from Q, he had to maintain that the saying “ There
shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than
over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance ”
was an editorial addition. The scales fell from my eyes. No
saying attributed to Jesus can have struck those who first heard
it as so utterly daring as this. I reflected that, if a man of
Harnack’s insight can be driven by the logic of his premises to
the conclusion that such a saying is an editorial addition, there
must be something wrong about the premises. Then it dawned
on me that the assumption on which he—and I too—had been
working was fundamentally false. Even if the differences

1 Oxford Studies, p. 197 ff.
2 A. Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus, p. 93 (Williams and Norgate, 1908).

CH. Ix A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 245

between the versions did not demonstrate, antecedent prob-
ability would lead us to expect, that two different collections of
parables would certainly overlap.

I proceeded at once to re-examine the parable in a Synopsis,
and I saw at once that if, instead of mechanically counting
the number of Greek words common to the two versions, one
asked which of the really significant words were found in both
versions and which in only one, the conclusion that the versions
were independent was confirmed. The words which are found
in both versions are the words without which the story could
not be told at all—‘ man,” “ sheep,” “ go,” “ find,” “‘ rejoice,”
the “1 say unto you” (which is the regular formula for pointing
the moral in our Lord’s teaching), and the three numerals, 100,
99, and 1, which since 100-1=99 would be inevitable in any
version. But where the versions can differ, they do so. For
Matthew’s “if it happen to a man,” Luke has “ what man of
you?”; for “be gone astray” (passive), “having lost”
(active) ; for “into the mountains,” “in the wilderness” ; for
“seek,” “go after’; for “layeth it on his shoulder rejoicing,”
“rejoiceth over it.’”’ Luke adds the calling together of friends
and neighbours, about which Matthew is silent, and the saying
about the joy in heaven over the sinner repentant; while
Matthew, instead of this, points the moral, “Even so it is
not the will of your Father that one of these little ones should
perish.”

3) (ς

The differences between the two versions of the parable
of the Lost Sheep are as nothing compared to the differences
between the other two pairs, the Marriage Feast=the Great
Supper, and the Talents=Pounds. But since Matthew has
eleven and Luke nineteen parables, and twenty-seven of these
thirty must have been derived from two quite different cycles
of tradition, the probability that the two cycles overlapped
to the extent of including divergent versions of at least three
parables is a high one.

It appears, then, that the occurrence in overlapping sources

246 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. Τὶ

of parallel versions of the same saying is characteristic alike of
canonical and extra-canonical reports of the teaching of Christ.
All analogies, therefore, are in favour of the hypothesis that
Q and M also would at some points overlap. |

MattuHew’s Mreruop or CoNFLATION

When an editor combines sources which cover the same
ground along some part of their extent, he has a choice of two
methods. He can either accept the version given by one source
and ignore the other, or he can make a careful mosaic by
“conflating” the two. We noticed in a previous chapter
(p. 187 ff.) that, when the same saying occurs in both Mark and
Q, Luke commonly accepts the Q version and ignores Mark’s ;
Matthew, on the other hand, usually conflates Mark and Q,
though with a tendency to abbreviate. Now, if it was Luke
himself who first combined Q and L, and ἐγ on this occasion he
followed his later practice of choosing one of two versions rather
than combining them, all traces of any overlapping there may
have been between Q and L will have been eliminated. On the
other hand, if Matthew pursued as between M and Q the same
method of conflation which he used where Q and Mark overlap,
some traces of the double version will still remain. The detection
of these is the immediate goal of our inquiry.

In order, however, to do this we must first study the way
in which Matthew conflates. It will appear that he not only
pieces together the substance of sayings that occur in two
different sources, but he combines minute points of difference
in their expression of the same thought.

The way in which the wording of Matthew’s parable of the
Mustard Seed conflates the versions of Mark and Luke is
particularly instructive. In the parallels printed below, words
found in both Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke, are printed
in heavy type; words found in Matthew and Luke, but not in
Mark, are underlined. Words found in all three are in extra
small type.

OH, IX

Mark iv. 30-32.
Kal ἔλεγεν

Πῶς ὁμοιώσωμεν

τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἢ
ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ
θῶμεν ;

31. ὡς κόκκῳ σινάπεως,

ὃς

ὅταν σπαρῇ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
μικρότερον ὃν

πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων

τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς--

32. καὶ ὅταν σπαρῇ ἀνα-
βαίνει καὶ γίνεται

μείζων πάντων τῶν λα-
χάνων καὶ ποιεῖ κλά-

δους μεγάλους, ὥστε
δύνασθαι
ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ

τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατα-
σκηνοῖν.

A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS

Matthew xiii. 31-32,

Ἄλλην παραβολὴν παρ-
ἐθηκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων

Ὁμοία ἐστὶν

ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν

κόκκῳ σινάπεως,

ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος

ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ"

82. 8 μικρότερον μέν
ἐστιν

πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων

ὅταν δὲ αὐξηθῇ

μεῖζον τῶν λαχάνων
ἐστὶν καὶ γίνεται δέν-
Spov ὥστε ἐλθεῖν

τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ
κατασκηνοῖν ἐν τοῖς

κλάδοις αὐτοῦ.

247

Luke xiii, 18-19.
"Ἔλεγεν οὖν

Τίνι ὁμοία ἐστὶν
ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ
τίνι ὁμοιώσω αὐτὴν ;

10. ὁμοία ἐστὶν

κόκκῳ σινάπεως,
ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος
ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ,

καὶ ηὔξησεν

καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον

καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
κατεσκήνωσεν ἐν τοῖς

κλάδοις αὐτοῦ.

In the above parallels we must ignore as irrelevant for such

comparisons all occurrences of the word “and,” the verb “‘to be,”
the definite article, and all pronouns; there remain 31 words
in Matthew’s version. Of these only 7 are his own; 7 occur
also in Mark and Luke; 10 in Mark; 7 occur in Luke but not
in Mark, and so presumably stood in Q. Now if Mark had been
lost, every one would have explained the verbal differences
between Matthew and Luke as due either to editorial amplifica-
tion by Matthew or to abbreviation by Luke. ΑΒ it is, we see
that practically every word in Matthew is drawn from one or
other of his two sources. But the differences between the
Marcan and the Lucan (i.e. the Q) version of the parable are
entirely unimportant. They in no way affect the general sense,
and no one antecedently would have expected that Matthew
would take the trouble to combine the two versions. The fact
that he has done so where so little was to be gained is thus a

248 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

very important revelation of the care he would be likely to take
when combining sources containing differences of real interest.
Another example, hardly less illuminating, of the almost
meticulous care with which Matthew conflates Mark and Q is
the discourse Mt. x. 9-15. This example is somewhat compli-
cated by the existence of a fourth version, Lk. ix. 3-5. This
is mainly from Mark, but its differences from Mark seem to
arise from conflation with the same Q discourse as that best
preserved in Lk. x. 4 ff.; Lk. ix. 3-5, however, seems to
retain a word or two from Q which has been modified in
Lk. x. 4 ff. This complication, and the fact that Matthew
repeats the words “entering,” “house,” “peace,” and “worthy”
more than once, would make a merely statistical statement
misleading. The notable thing is that the only real additions
he has to make are the words “‘ gold” (verse 9) and “ Gomorrha”’
(verse 15), both of which are due to verbal association—
“Gomorrha” is suggested by Sodom, and “ gold” by silver.
Gold is hardly original; it was not a commodity which those
for whom the words were first intended needed exhortation not
to carry, though copper or silver might be. Apart from these
two, obviously editorial, additions, there is not a word in any
way significant which is not to be found either in the Marcan
or one of the Lucan parallels.
There is another point to notice. The necessity of conflating
_ the Marcan and the Q versions has led Matthew entirely to
rearrange the order of the sentences in Q, which we may presume
to be preserved in Lk. x. 4 ff. There are only two other possible
Q passages where such a redistribution of sentences within a
single section occurs (I do not speak of diversity in the order of
complete sections dealing with separate topics, which is quite
another matter). These are Mt. v. 38-48 =Lk. vi. 27-36, ‘‘ Love
your enemies ” and the Denunciation of the Pharisees, Mt. xxiii.
1-36 =Lk. xi. 39-52. We shall see later (p. 252 1.) that here also
Matthew may have rearranged the order of Q, preserved by Luke,
in order to conflate with a parallel version from another source.

OH. IX A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 249

A study of these and other cases, similar though not quite
so striking, shows that, wherever we have reason to suspect
that Q and M overlap, we must insist on the probability that
the divergence between the two versions was originally greater
than that between the parallels as they now stand in Matthew
and Luke. Indeed, Matthew’s habit of conflating the actual
language of parallel sources compels us to formulate a new
principle of Synoptic criticism. Wherever parallel passages of
Matthew and Luke exhibit marked divergence, editorial modifica-
tion of Ὁ 18 a less probable explanation than conflation of Q
by Matthew with the language of a parallel version. I need
not pause to point out the havoc wrought by the formulation
of this principle in various critical reconstructions of Q—my
own included—which are based on exactly the opposite
assumption.

Tae SERMON ON THE Mount

In view of the evidence that the overlapping of sources is
a vera causa, and of the principle deduced above from a study
of Matthew’s method of conflation, let us explore the hypo-
thesis that there is overlapping between Q and M. This, unless
I am altogether mistaken, will lead to results of a highly
illuminating character. In particular it will explain those well-
known difficulties concerning the composition of the Sermon on
the Mount to which the Two Document Hypothesis has never
been able to give a really satisfactory answer.

The Sermon on the Mount (Mt. v.-vii.) is four times as long
as Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (Lk. vi. 20-49) ; but there are two
considerable sections of it which, though absent from the Sermon
on the Plain, occur in Luke scattered in different contexts. These
show such close verbal parallelism to Matthew that they must
certainly be referred to Q (Mt. vi. 22-33 = Lk. xi. 34-36,
xvi. 13, xii. 22-31 and Mt. vii. 7-11=Lk. xi, 9-13). These
create no difficulty; they have obviously been inserted in

1 For similar “conflation”? in Mediaeval documents see C. Plummer,
Expositor, July 1889.

250 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. τί

their present context by Matthew in accordance with his practice
of “ agglomerating,” %.e. of collecting into large discourses all
the available material dealing with the same or related topics.+
Both ‘sermons begin with Beatitudes, both end with the
parable of the House built upon the Sand, and to all but six
of the intervening verses in Luke’s Sermon there are parallels,
more or less exact, in the Sermon on the Mount; and both are
followed by the story of the Centurion’s Servant. The natural
inference is that Q contained a Great Sermon followed by the
story of the Centurion’s Servant. But on closer study it appears
that the Sermons in Matthew and Luke can be derived from
a single written source only if we postulate an almost incredible
amount of editorial freedom in rewriting portions of the original.
Thus Matthew has nine (originally, perhaps, eight) ? Beatitudes,
all but one in the third person; Luke has four Beatitudes
balanced by four corresponding Woes, all in the second person.
Only the final Beatitude in Mt. v. 11-12 (=Lk. vi. 22-23), unlike
the rest, which are in the third person, is in the second person
like all the Beatitudes of Luke, and is almost verbally identical
with the Lucan parallel. This divergence would not be un-
natural if they followed two independent oral traditions of the
same discourse; it is not plausibly explained as the result of
editorial modification of a written source, for we can check
the editorial methods of the authors by studying their handling
of the sayings of our Lord which they derive from Mark. Besides
the Beatitudes there are in the two Sermons other parallels

1 Curiously enough, apart from the final Beatitude, and the House on
the Sand, all the material in the Sermon on the Mount, which is certainly
from Q, comes in the block vi. 22-vii. 12; and all but two verses in this
block are 9.

* Verses 4 (‘they that mourn”) and 5 (‘the meek”’) are transposed by
33 Dack fam. 0 Syr. C. Orig.Mt.. . Transposition results when a sentence
written in the margin is inserted in the wrong place by the next copyist. But,
though a passage thus inserted may replace an accidental omission, it may be
an interpolation. I incline to agree with Harnack that Mt. v. 5 is an inter-
polation from Ps, xxxvii. 11, against Dr. Charles, who, in his The Decalogue
(T. ἃ T. Clark, 1923), argues that verse 4 is the interpolated verse, through
assimilation from Luke.

CH. Ix A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 251

where the degree of verbal resemblance is really not much
greater, for example the two very different versions of the
saying “ Lord, Lord,” Mt. vii. 21=Lk. vi. 46. Again, in the
striking section “ Resist not evil. ... Love your enemies ”
(Mt. v. 38-48=Lk. vi. 27-36), not only are there considerable
diversities of language, but the order in which the component
sayings are arranged is entirely different, which, as the example
of Mt. x. 9 ff. showed, suggest conflation of two sources. Indeed,
there are only two considerable passages which occur in both
sermons, 1.6. “ Judge not” (Mt. vii. 1-5=Lk. vi. 37-38, 41-42)
and the House on the Sand (Mt. vii. 24-27=Lk. vi. 47-49),
which can, without postulating a good deal of editorial modifica-
tion, be explained as being entirely derived from a single
common written source.

Let us now try the simple experiment of deducting from
the Sermon on the Mount just these passages which, on account
of their close resemblance to parallels in Luke, can with the
maximum of probability be assigned to Q. What remains—
more than two-thirds of the whole—reads like a continuous and
coherent discourse. Most of it is peculiar to Matthew; but
some passages, for example “ Love your enemies” and the
Lord’s Prayer, have parallels in Luke—sometimes within, some-
times outside, the Sermon on the Plain. But these parallels
have no more than that general resemblance which one would
expect in divergent traditions of the same original saying.
All the phenomena, however, can be satisfactorily explained
by the hypothesis that Matthew is conflating two separate dis-
courses, one from Q practically identical with Luke’s Sermon on
the Plain, the other from M containing a much longer Sermon.

Both Sermons opened with four Beatitudes. The Sermon
in Q contained the four Blessings in the second person, as in
Luke ; that in M gave four in the third person, corresponding to
Mt. v. 7-10. The Q Beatitude, “‘ Blessed are ye when men shall

. persecute you . . . for My name’s sake” (Mt. v. 11-12),
is a doublet of that in Mt. v. 10, “ Blessed are they which are

252 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

persecuted for righteousness’ sake,” which stood in M; other-
wise the two sets of four do not overlap. Matthew has simply
added the two sets together, changing the person and slightly
modifying the wording in three of those he takes from Ὁ.
Mt. v. 5, “the meek,” is, as the transposition in the MSS.
suggests, an early interpolation from Ps. xxxvii. 11. The four
Woes in Luke vi. 24 ff. may have stood in Q and been omitted
by Matthew. His explanatory additions to the Blessings,
on the Poor (+ in spirit), and on those that hunger (+ after
righteousness), show that he might well have thought the
denunciations of the “rich,” and the “full” (Lk. vi. 24-25),
open to misunderstanding ; poverty and hunger as such have
no ethical value.

The Sermons in Q and M occasionally overlapped, e.g. in the
section on Loving Enemies,? Mt. v. 38-48; the variation in
order between the parallels in Matthew and Luke is here very
marked, and wherever this happens (cf. p. 248), judging from
the way in which the editor of Matthew deals with overlapping
of Mark and Q, we suspect that there has been a certain
amount of conflation. Hence the Q and M versions of any saying
which occurred in both Sermons would in the original sources
have shown greater divergence than do the present texts of
Matthew and Luke. Having thus conflated the two Sermons
from Q and M, Matthew proceeded to add to them certain
other passages of Q, which Luke gives later in his Gospel in
what is more likely to be their original context in that source.

The hypothesis of a summary of Christian teaching intended
for catechetical instruction, current in oral tradition in more
than one form, has often been invoked to account for the com-
bined phenomena of resemblance and difference between the
versions of the Great Sermon in Matthew and in Luke. But
as usually presented it goes shipwreck on the fact that, in the

1 T owe several points in this analysis to suggestions by Prof. Dodd.

3 Rom. xii. 14, ‘ Bless them that persecute you,” etc,, suggests that various
summaries of this part of our Lord’s teaching were current.

OH, 1x A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 253

source used by both Matthew and Luke, the story of the
Centurion’s Servant follows immediately after the Great Sermon.
That difficulty disappears if, instead of supposing that Matthew
and Luke had each a different version of the same Sermon, we
suppose that Matthew had before him two documents, Q which
contained both the Sermon on the Plain and the Centurion’s
Servant, and M which gave a substantially different version
of the Sermon, but did not include the Centurion’s Servant.
The idea of conflating the two would be inevitably suggested
to Matthew by the fact that both Sermons began with Beatitudes
and also that they overlapped at certain other points.

We proceed to consider the long discourse Mt. xxiii., the
Woes to the Pharisees. This is, next to the Sermon on the Mount,
the longest connected discourse of which both the Matthean and
the Lucan versions (Mt. xxiii. 1-36 = Lk. xi. 37-52) cannot be re-
ferred to a single written source without raising great difficulties.
Matthew’s is much the longer version, and it reads like an early
Jewish Christian polemical pamphlet against their oppressors
the Pharisees. No doubt it is largely based upon a tradition
of genuine sayings of Christ, but we cannot but suspect that it
considerably accentuates the manner, if not also the matter,
of His criticism of them. Indeed it is the one discourse of our
Lord which, from its complete ignoring of the better elements
in a movement like Pharisaism, it is not easy to defend from the
accusation made by students of Jewish religion of being un-
sympathetic and unfair. Now it is quite commonly assumed
as almost self-evident that Matthew’s version stood in Q and
that Luke’s is an abbreviated reproduction of the same source.
But there are three considerations which give us pause. (1) The
divergence between the parallels is well above the average in
wording and it is accompanied by a great variety in the order—a
signpost for conflation (p. 248). (2) There is a fundamental differ-
ence in structure between the two discourses. The core of the
discourse in Matthew is the seven times repeated “ Woe unto
you, Scribes and Pharisees.” But in Luke what we have is

264 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 0

three Woes against Pharisees followed by three against Lawyers.
(3) It is to be noted that quite the most striking of the very
few cases in the Gospels where the diversity between Matthew
and Luke can be plausibly accounted for by independent trans-
lation from Aramaic occur in this discourse.!

The fact that Luke’s version of the discourse, xi. 37-52,
comes in the middle of a section of which the rest is certainly
derived from Q, makes it probable that his version stood in that
document and that Matthew has again conflated a discourse
of Q with one on the same topic which came to him in M. But
here, again, the very fact that Matthew’s version is a conflation
of Q and M means that Mt. xxiii. as it now stands bears a much
closer resemblance to Lk. xi. 37-52 than did the original dis-
course that stood in M. Yet again, Matthew, besides placing
the discourse in a Marcan context, adds to it a few words
from Mark, 6.9. πρωτοκλισίας, κτὰ., Mt. xxiii. 6=Mk. xu. 39.
Finally, we must notice that Matthew has completed his
structure by appending xxiii. 37-39, the Q saying, “ Jerusalem,
Jerusalem,” which occurs in what to me looks a far more
original context in Lk. xiii, 34-35.

JUDAISTIC TENDENCY oF M

Mt. x. 9-16 is, as we have already seen, a most careful com-
bination of the Charge to the Twelve (Mk. vi. 7-11) and the
Charge to the Seventy (Lk. x. 3-12) which we assign to Ὁ,
Besides this, the chapter contains other sections derived from
either Mark or Q. Mt. x. 17-22 seems to have been transferred
by the editor from Mk. xiii. 9-13. Mt. x. 36-38 seems to be
from Q, while x. 40, 42 are from Mark. Only about half a dozen
verses remain which are without close parallels in either Mark
or Luke. We ask whence were these derived. Much the most
striking are the words which precede the conflated discourse :

1 Wellhausen suggests that +37 (cleanse) misread as 591 (give alms) would
account for Luke’s τὰ ἔνοντα δότε ἐλεημοσύνην as compared with Matthew's
καθάρισον πρῶτον τὸ ἐντός.

OH, ΙΧ A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 255

“Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any
city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel” (Mt. x. 5-6). There is, I think, a close connec-
tion of thought between this opening and the words which
conclude the first half of the discourse, ‘‘ Ye shall not have
gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come ”
(x. 23). This verse appears to be intended to give a reason
for the previous prohibition to preach to Gentiles or Samaritans.
It is not that Gentiles cannot or ought not to be saved, but
the time will not be long enough to preach to all, and Israel
has the first right to hear. But if I am correct in this inter-
pretation, the two passages must originally have stood much
closer together. They look like the beginning and end of a
Judaistic version of the Charge to the Twelve, the wording of
which has taken the precise form it now bears under the influence
of the controversy about the Gentile Mission which almost split
the early Church.! The question then arises, Did these words
stand in Q and form the original beginning and end of the
discourse which Luke gives as that to the Seventy ? Or does
Mt. x. 5-8, 23, with the possible additions of x. 24, 25, 41,
represent a short Judaistic charge, which Matthew has con-
flated with the versions given by Mark and Q? If we elect
for the former alternative, we must say that Luke, convinced
that a command of the Lord not to go to Gentile or Samaritan
could not be genuine, has left out the words. If we choose
the latter, it follows that Q in its original form was a document
emanating from the Judaistic section of the Church.

Against the view that Q was a Judaistic document two
considerations may be urged :

1 Schweitzer argued, from Mt. x. 23, that Christ expected the Parousia
before the return of the Twelve from their preaching tour; but the words
clearly reflect a situation which did not come into existence till the Missionary
Journeys of Paul. Incidentally, I may remark that Schweitzer’s whole
argument depends on the assumption that Mt. x. is word for word an exact
report of what was said at the time. The demonstration I have given above,

that Mt. x. 5-23 is a late conflation of at least two sources, Mark and Q, would
alone be a sufficient refutation of his argument.

256 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 11

(1) The occurrence in it of the pro-Gentile incident of the
Centurion’s Servant, and the saying about the Law and the
Prophets being until John, which, whatever its original meaning,
certainly lends itself to the view that the Old Law was in a
sense superseded by the Gospel. To this it may be objected
that since in Matthew these and similar sayings occur side by
side with ones of a Judaistic tenor, the same thing may have
happened in Q. But to this I would reply that it is not very
likely that the author of a primitive document would put side
by side sayings implying contrary rulings on what at the time
he wrote was a highly controversial issue; it is quite another
matter for a later writer, very conservative as Matthew is in
his use of his sources, to include contrary sayings found in two
different ancient documents, especially as the controversy in
question had by that time largely died down.

(2) Judaistic sayings in Matthew only occur in contexts
which on other grounds we should refer to M, or where there
is evidence of conflation between Q and another source. In
all these Judaistic passages it is difficult not to suspect the
influence of the desire of the followers of James to find a
justification for their disapprobation of the attitude of Paul,
by inventing sayings of Christ, or misquoting sayings which,
even if authentic, must originally have been spoken in view of
entirely different circumstances. The sayings of every great
leader have always been quoted by his followers in the next
generation to justify their own attitude in circumstances quite
different from his; and where there exists no written or printed
record to check their original form it is easy for the actual
wording, as well as the application, of the sayings to become
changed.

The first of these passages is Mt. v. 17-20, which defines
the relation of Christianity to the Law. The saying, “ Whosoever
therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of
Heaven,” is sharply contrasted with “‘ Whosoever shall do and

CH. Ix A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 257

teach men 80, he shall be called great in the Kingdom.” This
reflects the attitude of the Jewish Christians who, while barely
tolerating the proceedings of Paul, regarded as the pattern
Christian, James, surnamed the Just, because his righteousness,
even according to the Law, did exceed that of the Scribes and
Pharisees.! It is to be remarked that this passage does not come
in that part of the Sermon on the Mount which we have
referred to Q.

The same idea is still more clearly enforced in Mt. xxiii. 2-3,
‘The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all things there-
fore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe.” Here
we have attributed to our Lord an emphatic commandment to
obey, not only the Law, but the scribal interpretation of it.
That is to say, He is represented as inculcating scrupulous
obedience to that very “tradition of the elders”’ which He
specifically denounces in Mk. vii. 13. But here again we have
already, on other grounds, seen reason to suppose that Matthew’s
version of this discourse was derived largely from M.

The section (Mt. xviii. 15-22) “If thy brother sin against
thee . . . till seventy times seven” differs in wording from
Lk. xvii. 3-4 so much that it is not likely that both passages
were taken from Q; especially as we know of another version
of this particular saying—in some ways intermediate between
those of Matthew and Luke—preserved in the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews (cf. p. 282). It must therefore be assigned
to M. Now an important little point, affording confirmatory
evidence that the sayings of a Judaistic type are connected
with M rather than with Q, is the fact that on examination
it appears that this saying, as it occurred in M, was set in a
Judaistic context. Only here, and in the passage ‘“‘ Thou art
Peter,” does the word “Church” occur in the Gospels; and
the word “Church” in this context clearly means the little

1 It is possible that the passionate protest, “1 am the least of the apostles
. . . but I laboured more abundantly than they all,” 1 Cor. xv. 9 ff., has a
reference to a description of him and his work by the Judaisers in words
not dissimilar to those in the text.

258 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

community of Jewish Christians. In a Gentile community
tradition would surely have modified the form of the injunction
“Tf he refuse to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as the
Gentile and the publican.” 1

It might be argued that a similar “tendency” appears in
the famous “ Thou art Peter” (Mt. xvi. 18 ff.). In the Jewish
idiom, “I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven ”’ means “1 appoint thee my Grand Vizier”; and
“to loose” and “to bind” are technical terms for declaring
permissible or the reverse particular lines of conduct in the
light of the obligations of the Law. The passage, in the form
in which we have it, is an emphatic declaration that Peter is
the Apostle who on these points could speak with the authority
of Christ. What our Lord really said to Peter, and what at
the time of speaking He meant by it, is an entirely different
question ; and it is not one to which we are likely to find an
answer with which everybody will be convinced. But whatever
the words meant as originally spoken, it is hard not to suspect
that they have since been modified by some controversy between
the followers of different leaders in the early Church. But to
my mind it is less likely to have been the controversy between
the party who said “I am of Peter” and the admirers of Paul,
than that between the extreme Judaisers who exalted James to
the supreme position and the intermediate party who followed
Peter.2 In that case ‘‘ Thou art Peter ”’ will have been derived,

1 As early as Hermas, ecclesiastical writers use the term “ Gentiles” as
equivalent to pagans; but this usage implies a time when the controversy
whether Gentiles could be admitted to the Church on equal terms with Jews
had long ago been settled. τὰ ἔθνη occurred in Q (Mt. vi. 32=Lk. vii. 30), but
not in such an invidious sense as the ἐθνικός of Mt. xviii. 17 and Mt. v. 47.
Luke, however, tones it down in vii. 10 by adding τοῦ κόσμου.

3 The Clementine Homilies open with a letter from Peter to James begin-
ning, ‘‘ Peter to James, the lord and bishop of the holy Church, under the
Father of all, through Jesus Christ.’’ This is followed by one from Clement,
“Clement to James, the lord (or lord’s brother) and the bishop of bishops, who
rules Jerusalem . . . and the churches everywhere.” The Homilies probably
date +180, but in this particular regard must represent a party feeling of an
earlier period.

OH. IX A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 259

not from M, but from the local traditions of Antioch—the
headquarters of this intermediate party.1 But we shall refer
to M the doublet of this saying, Mt. xviii. 17, which confers
the power “to bind and loose” upon the Ecclesia, that is, on
the righteous remnant of the People of God, of which the
Jerusalem Church was the natural headquarters and shepherd.

OVERLAPPING OF Mark anp M

Seeing there is evidence of the existence of a source evidently
emanating from a Judaistic circle, we must not overlook the
possibility that there would be overlapping between it and
Mark as well as between it and Q. And it is the fact that the
occurrence of parallel versions of the same incident in Mark
and M would explain three cases where Matthew’s account
appears to be in some ways more original than Mark’s.

(1) Matthew’s section on Divorce (Mt. xix. 3-12) is both
more naturally told and more closely related to Jewish usage
than the parallel in Mark (Mk. x. 2-12).2 The words “ for
every cause’ in the question put by the Pharisees look more
original, since they imply that the point submitted to the reputed
Prophet in regard to the grounds of divorce was one actually
debated at the time between the schools of Hillel and Shammai.
So does our Lord’s reply, referring them for an answer to the
fundamental principle stated in Genesis, “ They two shall be one
flesh.” The reference to the law of divorce in Deuteronomy
comes more appropriately, as in Matthew, in their reply to Him
than, as in Mark, as our Lord’s original answer. And, finally,
Matthew’s arrangement makes His final rejoinder, that this was
merely permissive, more effective.

(2) In the story Mt. xii. 9-13—told, not for the sake of the
healing miracle, but to illustrate our Lord’s attitude to the
Sabbath—Matthew adds to Mark the detail “‘a sheep in a pit.”

1 Cf. p. 504 and p. 511 ff.; Foakes-Jackson and Lake, op. cit. i. p. 328 ff.

2 Cf. R. H. Charles, The Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce, p. 85 fi,
(Williams and Norgate, 1921).

260 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

If we compare with this the addition “ox in a pit” in the similar
story in Luke (xiv. 1-6), we shall be inclined to attribute it to
conflation with another version rather than to editorial expansion.

(3) The account of the Syrophenician woman, as given by
Matthew, is made, by an addition of the two and a half verses
(Mt. xv. 22b-24) (which suggest very great reluctance on the
part of our Lord to heal a Gentile), very much more Judaistic
than the version given by Mark (vii. 24-30).1

But Divorce, the Sabbath, and the position of Gentiles were
all burning questions, especially among Jewish Christians.
Hence we should expect that sayings or stories which could be
quoted as defining Christ’s attitude towards them would be
current at a very early time in nearly every Church—and most
certainly in the Church of Jerusalem. It seems likely, then, that
in these three instances Matthew had before him a parallel
version in M. But in each case he tells the story in the context
in which it occurs in Mark. Probably, then, he takes Mark’s
version as his basis, adding only a few notable details from
that of M. Thus only fragments of the M version are likely
to have been preserved, and its original form may have differed
considerably from Mark. Hence here, as so often, we cannot
reconstruct the M version.

In view of the evidence submitted in this and the two pre-
ceding sections, it is, I think, clear that Matthew made use of
a cycle of tradition of a distinctly Judaistic bias which to some
extent ran parallel to the cycles preserved in Mark, in Q, and in L.
If we suppose that the whole of the Parable and Discourse
material peculiar to Matthew, plus the sections commented on
above, came from a single source, it would be of much the
same length as Q; and the proportion of this source paralleled in
other sources would not be greater than the proportion of Q
that is paralleled by Mark. For the view that the whole of this
material came from a single source the amount of evidence

1 The reading of Syr. 8. is even more Judaistic: “1 have not been sent
save after the flock, which hath strayed from the House of Israel.”

OH. Ix A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 261

that can be produced is small. All that we can say is that,
while only a few passages are Judaistic in the party sense, the
whole of it is redolent of the soil of Judaea ; that it is the kind
of collection we should expect to emanate from Jerusalem ;
and, lastly, that it is hard to account for the fact that so very
little tradition of any value has survived outside the Four
Gospels, unless we suppose that the tradition of the Church of
Jerusalem, which we should expect to be quite exceptionally rich,
is incorporated in one or other of those Gospels. That Matthew
made use of a source or sources which were in some respects
parallel to Q and L, I regard as proved; that this material,
along with, at any rate, the bulk of his peculiar matter, was the
cycle of tradition of the Church of Jerusalem, is in no sense
proved; but it seems more probable than any alternative
suggestion.

THe Great Discourses or MaTTHEWw

In past times more than one critic has put forward the
hypothesis that five great discourses of Mt. v.-vii., x., xiil., Xviil.,
xxiv.-xxv.! were taken over by him practically unaltered from an
earlier source. One great objection to this theory is that the
four lesser ones seem largely built up of material derived from
Mark. But, of course, if there is reason to believe that M
contained material closely parallel to parts of Mark, that objec-
tion is shaken. Accordingly I have felt it incumbent on me to
reinvestigate this hypothesis. The result of such reinvestigation
is distinctly unfavourable to its acceptance. But as the con-
clusion come to on this point has an important bearing on any
reconstruction of Q we may attempt, I will briefly lay the facts
before the reader.

The chief attraction of this hypothesis is that it would explain

1 Some think that chap. xxiii. should be regarded as part of the same
discourse as xxiv.-xxyv., the saying, ‘“‘Thy house is left unto thee desolate”

(xxiii. 38), being interpreted of the Temple, whose destruction is the theme of
chap. xxiv.

262 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. Π

the occurrence five times, after each of these great discourses, of
the formula, ‘“‘ It came to pass when Jesus had finished these
sayings that... . It has been pointed out that the number
five is a standard number in literary usage, both Jewish and early
Christian. There are five books of the Law and of the Psalms,
five original divisions of the Rabbinical works the Megilloth and
the Pirge Aboth, and Papias wrote ‘Interpretations of the
Sayings of the Lord,” divided into five books. It has been
suggested 1 that the above formula is the remains of a colophon,
comparable to “The prayers of David the Son of Jesse are
ended ”’ which appears to have once marked the conclusion of an
earlier collection included in the Psalms (cf. Ps. Ixxii. 20). To
this I would reply that a colophon, though appropriate at the
end of a volume, would seem a trifle ridiculous at the end of
collections of sayings not longer than Mt. x., xiii.,or xviii. Again,
the formula has really no resemblance to a colophon; its
emphasis is not on the “ Here endeth” but on “ Here begin-
neth”’; it is a formula of transition from discourse to narrative.
Nor does its occurrence five times in Matthew constitute evidence
that it occurred just that number of times in his source; for
“repetition of formulae” is one of the notable characteristics
of his Gospel.2 It is just possible that Matthew may have
found the formula in Q, for a phrase rather like it occurs after
Luke’s Sermon on the Plain in a context parallel to the occur-
rence of the formula in Matthew after the Sermon on the
Mount (Lk. vii. 1 = Mt. vii. 28). But, if it stood in Luke’s copy
of Q, there also it would have done so as a formula of transition
from discourse to narrative; for in Luke it occurs between the
Great Sermon and the story of the Centurion’s Servant. It
would seem likely, then, that Matthew found the formula in Q,
and thought it a convenient one to repeat whenever he had
occasion to mark a similar transition from a long discourse to
narrative.

But, whatever may be the origin of this formula, there are

1 Hawkins’ Hor. Syn.* p. 163 ff. 2 Cf. ibid. p. 168.

CH. Ix A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 263

insuperable difficulties in the way of supposing that these five
great discourses stood in M in anything like their present form.

I. The Sermon on the Mount we have already discussed.
We have seen that perhaps two-thirds of it did stand in M as a
continuous discourse, but that it was by no means the equivalent
of Mt. v.-vii., for Matthew has inserted into it large sections of Q.1
An examination of the other discourses yields even clearer results.

II. The discourse part of Mt. x. opens, as we have seen
above (p. 254f.), by conflating a Mission Charge from the three
sources, Mark, Q, and M (Mt. x. 5-16, 23). Verses 24-25 and 41,
being peculiar to Matthew, are probably M. Everything in
36-39 has parallels in Luke in different contexts, but as these
are not all equally close, we may leave it an open question how
much of this section is from Q and how much from M. But
there are three other passages which have close parallels in
Mark (Mt. x. 17-20, 40, 42). In the first and third we may be
pretty certain that Matthew is dependent on Mark. Thus the
saying “ Stand before governors . . . as a testimony unto them.
And the gospel must first be preached to the Gentiles,” in its
Marcan form and context (Mk. xiii. 10), gives a reason for that
delay of the Parousia which it is one of the main themes of the
“Little Apocalypse’? to account for, cf. “The End is not
yet” (xiii. 7). In Mark’s view the End is postponed in order
to allow time for the conversion of the Gentiles, which this perse-
eution and its resultant “testimony ”’ will help forward. But
Matthew’s abbreviation of Mark “As a witness to them and to
the Gentiles” (Mt. x. 18) misses this point. Again Matthew’s
“ Whosoever shall give to drink one of these little ones a cup of
cold water” (Mt. x. 42) is clearly secondary to Mk. ix. 41, “‘ Who-
soever shall give you a cup of cold water”; for Matthew’s
addition “one of these little ones” is derived from another
saying of Mark which occurs in the immediate context (Mk. ix.

1 There are a few short sayings in it which have parallels in Mark, but
whether these have been inserted by Matthew from Mark, or whether in these
instances there were sayings in Q or M similar to Mark it is not possible to
determine.

264 THE FOUR GOSPELS PY. I

42), so that Matthew is (unconsciously) conflating two passages
in Mark. On the other hand, the saying “ He that receiveth
you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that
sent me” (Mt. x. 40, cf. Mk. ix. 37) is quite possibly a case where
Mark and M overlap. At any rate it is worth while noticing
that this saying occurs in four slightly different forms in the
Gospels, and is one of those cases (cf. p. 185) where the
incorporation by different authors of different versions of a
widely circulated quasi-proverbial saying is quite as probable
as dependence on a written source.

ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται" καὶ ὁ ἐμὲ δεχόμενος
δέχεται τὸν ἀποστείλαντά pe, Mt. x. 40.

ὃς ἐὰν ὃν τῶν τοιούτων παιδίων δέξηται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί
μου, ἐμὲ δέχεται" καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἐμὲ δέξηται, οὐκ ἐμὲ δέχεται,
ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με, Mk. ix. 37.

ὁ ἀκούων ὑμῶν ἐμοῦ ἀκούει" καὶ ὁ ἀθετῶν ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ ἀθετεῖ"
ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ ἀθετῶν ἀθετεῖ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με, Lk. x. 16.

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ λαμβάνων ἐάν τινα πέμψω, ἐμὲ
λαμβάνει: ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ λαμβάνων, λαμβάνει τὸν πέμψαντά με,
Jn. xiii. 20.

III. Chap. xii., the Parable chapter, is obviously an
agglomeration compiled by the editor of the Gospel. The parable
of the Sower, with the narrative introduction and the explana-
tion appended, must be from Mk. iv. 1-20. The Mustard and
Leaven stood together as a pair in Q. The other four parables
are from M or some other source. Thus the evidence of com-
pilation from at least three different sources is conclusive.

IV. The Apocalyptic chapter, Mt. xxiv., is simply Mk. xiii.
ingeniously expanded with material from 9.1 It is worth while
for the student, if only on account of the light it throws on
Matthew’s editorial method of agglomeration, to look up the
passages, and see how ingeniously they are suited to their

1 This conclusion is not affected if we suppose, with some critics, that

Matthew had before him, in addition to Mark’s version, a copy of the Little
Apocalypse with some slight textual variations,

On. Ix A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 265

context in Mark. Mt. xxiv. 26-28 and 37-39 are fragments of
Lk. xvii. 22-37, while 43-51=Lk. xii. 42-46. Lastly, if we
examine Mt. x. and xviii. closely, we shall see that many of
the sections parallel to Mark look less original in their Matthean
than in their Marcan form; and the inferiority is of a kind
that suggests the hand of an editor.

V. Matthew xviii. consists very largely of material peculiar
to the First Gospel. It contains two items, the Lost Sheep and
the saying on Forgiveness (Mt. xviii. 12-14, 15, 21-22), which in
Luke’s version differ so much that it is improbable that both
can be derived from Q. Both of these may be provisionally
assigned to M. But the context in which Matthew places the
discourse, as well as the structure of the first half of it, are deter-
mined for him by the context and structure of the discourse in
Mark (Mk. ix. 33-50). Matthew habitually abbreviates Mark,
and xviii. 8-9 is clearly a contracted version of Mk. ix. 43-48.
The offending hand and foot have a verse each in Mark, but
Matthew combines it into one sentence, “if thy hand or thy foot
offend.” Again, in Matthew the two words “ eternal fire” (v. 8)
and the addition “of fire” (v. 9) are a brief substitute for
Mark’s quotation from Is. lxvi. 24, ‘‘ where the worm dieth not
and the fire is not quenched.” A comparison of Mk. ix. 42 with
both Mt. xviii. 6-7 and Lk. xvii. 1-2 makes it fairly certain that
both Mark and Q must have contained the saying about “ offend-
ing little ones,” but that Q contained it with the addition
which appears in Lk. xvii. 1=Mt. xviii. 7. But Luke, and there-
fore probably Q, connected the saying on Offences with that on
Forgiveness. It does not, however, follow that the saying on
Forgiveness, Mt. xviii., ig derived from Q. Matthew knew Q as
well as M; he may well have put the similar saying on Forgive-
ness from M in the same discourse as that which contains the
Q saying on Offences.

We conclude that an analysis of every one of the Great
Discourses yields evidence that it is an agglomeration put
together by the editor of the Gospel.

266 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. πὶ

THe Inrancy NARRATIVES

The phrase “ Four Document Hypothesis,” I need hardly
say, ΙΒ no more intended than was the older term, ‘“ Two
Document Hypothesis,” to rule out the view that the first two
chapters in either Matthew or Luke may have been derived from
written sources. That is a subject not strictly relevant to the
present chapter ; nor is it one on which I feel I have anything
of much value to contribute. Lest, however, I should seem to
ignore altogether so interesting a section of the Gospels, I will
take this opportunity briefly, and without going elaborately into
reasons, to state my own conclusions.

For the first two chapters of Matthew I see no reason to
postulate a written source. For them, as for the narrative addi-
tions of the First Gospel, the local tradition of the Church—
probably Antioch—where that Gospel was written seems an
adequate source. With Luke the case is otherwise. Professor
C. C. Torrey 1 argues on linguistic grounds that Lk. i.-ii. must
have been translated, not merely from a Semitic language, but
from Hebrew as distinct from Aramaic.? The point is one on
which I have not the linguistic qualifications needed to pro-
nounce a judgement. But on one point I feel fairly clear. The
Magnificat and the Benedictus were not originally written in
Greek. No one who thought in Greek could have produced,
either ἐποίησε κράτος ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ i. 51, or ἤγειρε
κέρας σωτηρίας ἡμῖν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ Δαβίδ i. 69.

The question whether the narrative as a whole, as distinct
from the hymns it embodies, was written in Hebrew is more
difficult. Linguistically it has been pointed out that Lk. i. and
ii. are replete both with words and expressions characteristic of
Luke’s style and also with reminiscences of the LXX. These two

1 The Translations made from the Original Aramaic Gospels, The Macmillan
Company, New York, 1912, pp. 290 ff.

2 The point is worked out still further in the article, “The Ten Lucan
Hymns of the Nativity in their Original Language,” by R. A. Aytoun, J.7.8.,
July 1917.

OH, ΙΧ A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 267

observations, however, to some extent cover the same ground ;
one of the things by which Luke’s style is distinguished from that
of the other Gospels is his fondness for Septuagintal language.
Luke knew his Greek Bible very well, and may have thought
a kind of “ biblical Greek ” appropriate for a Gospel.

A similar consideration would apply, if we supposed that
Luke derived these chapters from a Hebrew source. Whoever
wrote them was familiar with, and had modelled his style on, the
accounts of the birth and infancy of Samson and Samuel in the
Old Testament. But, just as modern archaeologists translate
Babylonian documents into a style modelled on that of the
Authorised Version of the English Bible, so it would be natural
to the translator of a Hebrew Protevangelium to adopt the
familiar wording of the LXX. Again, Luke himself, if he had a
Greek translation of the document in question, would deal with
it in the same way as he does with his other sources ; he would
slightly abbreviate and polish up the Greek, but in this case his
very considerable literary instinct would lead him to do the re-
writing in Septuagintal Greek.

Taken all in all, the probabilities point to a written source.
A question, then, of special interest arises: Did the docu-
ment as it came to Luke include any indication of a Virgin
Birth? In Matthew the virginity of Mary pervades the
whole story ; for, as we have seen above (p. 87) the reading,
“Joseph . . . begat Jesus,” Mt. i. 16, in Syr. S. has small
claim to be regarded as the true text. But in Luke extra-
ordinarily little emphasis is laid on it. Indeed, if, with Syr. 5.
abe ff?, we read γυναικί instead of μεμνηστευμένη in ii. 5,
the idea of virginity is only clearly brought out in i. 34, “ And
Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing that I
know not a man?” It is notable that the Old Latin MS. ὃ
omits this verse, substituting for it “And Mary said, Behold,
the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy
word.” In the ordinary text these words occur later on, as
the first half of verse 38; but 6 omits them in 38, and in this

268 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. Π'

omission it has the support of e. This partial support of ὃ by e
may be accidental, but it makes it harder to brush aside the
reading of ὃ as an idiosyncrasy of the scribe of that MS.1_ And
as the reading of ὃ makes excellent sense, the possibility must
be considered that it represents the text as Luke wrote it, the
ordinary text being a piece of harmonistic editing intended to
make it clear that Luke as well as Matthew attached importance
to the Virginity. But the question whether the reading of ὃ
should be regarded as original is not one which anyone is likely
to decide purely on grounds of textual criticism. Those who
believe that Christ was born of a Virgin will think it improbable
that Luke should have neglected to make this clear, and will
scoff at the idea of rejecting the evidence of all the Greek MSS.
and all the versions in favour of that of a single Latin MS. of
the fifth century. On the other hand, those who regard the
Virgin Birth as improbable, but are aware of the immense
importance attached to the belief by the Fathers at least as
early as Ignatius of Antioch, 4.p. 115, will think it remarkable
that a reading which ignores it should have survived till so late
a date even in a single MS.

CoNCLUSION

By making it possible to connect the sources of our Gospels
with the great Churches, a Four Document Hypothesis ex-
plains a wider range of phenomena than the Two Document
Hypothesis at present current.

(1) It gives a fuller meaning to the reference in the Preface
of Luke to the “ many ” who had written previously and to the
plan and purpose of his own work. Luke knew that several
little Churches had their own collection, larger or smaller, of
sayings of Christ and stories about Him; but nobody could be
sure where they came from or how far they could be trusted.

1 By a curious coincidence this same MS. is the only one which preserves

the reading in Jn. i. 13, quoted by various Western fathers (cf. p. 70 above),
which makes John assert the Virgin Birth.

OH. IX A FOUR DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 269

Luke therefore brushes them all aside. He will use only the
materials collected by himself in Caesarea or those of which the
authenticity is attested by their reception in the great Churches
of Antioch and Rome. The “accuracy ” of these materials he
can guarantee to Theophilus by reason of his own connection,
and the connection of the tradition of these Churches, with the
names of those who had been from the beginning “‘ eye-witnesses ”
like Peter or “‘ ministers of the word ” like Philip or like Mark.

(2) It also explains the curious mixture in Matthew of
Judaistic with Universalistic sayings, and the concurrence of
conspicuously ancient along with some highly doubtful matter.
Luke’s Gospel bears the impress of an individuality, Matthew
has more of an official quality ; there is less literary freedom,
more careful conflation of written sources. This, too, is explained
if we think of Matthew as a studiedly conservative combination
of the “ gospels ” of the three Churches whose traditions would
seem to carry the greatest weight, Jerusalem, Antioch, and
Rome, expanded with an account of the Infancy and some
details of the Passion derived from oral tradition current in the
author’s own Church—most probably the Church of Antioch.

(3) The connection of these Gospels with the traditions of
the great Churches explains the authoritative position which,
as against all rivals, they so soon achieved, and thus their
ultimate selection as the nucleus of the Canon. It was because
the Synoptic Gospels included what each of the great Churches
most valued in its own local traditions, and much more also,
that the records of these local traditions were allowed to perish.

Thus a Four Document Hypothesis not only offers an
extremely simple explanation of all the difficulties which the
Two Document Hypothesis cannot satisfactorily meet, but also
reflects far better the historical situation in the primitive Church.
But there is one thing it does not do. It does not enable us to
make a “tidy” scheme showing us exactly which sayings or
incidents belong to M, which to L, and which to Ὁ. If Matthew
and Luke used four sources, every one of which to a certain

210 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

extent overlapped with every other, the problem of disentangling
them, beyond a certain point, is one which no amount of ingenuity
can solve.

But so far as the historian is concerned, this is a matter of
very little importance. Only if Q is regarded as the earliest
and most authentic of all sources, is it of any special interest
to know whether or not it included a particular saying. There
was a time when a special authority was attributed to anything
which occurred “in all Four Gospels”; again, “the triple
tradition” sounded impressive till it was pointed out that a
statement of Mark did not become more certain because it
happened to be copied by both Matthew and Luke; it is now
seen that even the “ double tradition ” has no special sanctity.
So far as historical detail is concerned, Mark and Luke are more
to be relied on than Matthew; and where Mark and Luke
conflict, Mark is more often to be followed. But as regards the
teaching of Christ, much that occurs in a single Gospel is as
likely to be genuine as what occurs in two or in all three.

But there is still a value in a “double attestation.” If a
saying occurs in Q we know for certain that it was written
down at a date considerably earlier than that at which the
existing Gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed—probably
also earlier than Mark. Of a saying that is not in Q, all we can
say is that this may have been the case. Whenever, however,

ςς

we find a saying or parable occurring in two different versions
—whether it be in Q and Mark, Q and M, Q and L, M and L,
or M and Mark—we have evidence that the saying in question
has come down by two different lines of tradition, which
probably bifurcated at a date earlier even than that at which
Q was written down.

Thus the final result of the critical analysis which has led
to our formulating the Four Document Hypothesis is very
materially to broaden the basis of evidence for the authentic
teaching of Christ.

Xx
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF Q

SYNOPSIS

THE OrIGINAL ORDER oF Ὁ

If attention is concentrated on the larger groups of sayings,
to the exclusion of scattered fragments, there is considerable agree-
ment between Matthew and Luke in the relative order in which they
arrange material from Q.

The diversity in order results chiefly from the incorporation
by Matthew into the three great discourses, v.-vil., X., XXill.-xKXvV.,
of material disposed of by Luke in different parts of his “ Central
Section.”

Generally speaking, Luke seems to preserve the original order
of Q.

TEXTUAL ASSIMILATION AND THE LoRD’s PRAYER

The Synoptic critic must be on the look-out for the possibility that
even the best MSS. have been corrupted by assimilation from parallel
passages in another gospel.

Evidence that the true text of Luke xi. 2 read, “ Thy Holy Spirit
come upon us and cleanse us,” which has been replaced by the words
“Thy Kingdom come” from Matthew. If so, the Lord’s Prayer
was not found in Q; but two different versions of it were found
by Matthew and Luke in M and L respectively.

Five Buiocks or Q

In Luke’s “Central Section” Q and L material is arranged,
roughly speaking, in alternate blocks. A study of some shorter
passages, within the blocks derived from Q, which are not found in
Matthew, suggests that these passages may have stood in Matthew’s
copy of Q, but that he preferred and substituted for them the parallel
versions of the same item which he found in Mark or M.

271

212 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. It

OVERLAPPING OF Ὁ anp M

Five passages considered, in which Luke appears to have pre-
served the version of Q with but little modification, while Matthew.
has conflated Q with similar sayings from M.

ScaTTERED FRAGMENTS

Though Luke normally gives Q material in its original context, he
occasionally allows himself to depart from this usage in order to
secure appropriateness of connection of subject matter.

The saying “‘ Ye shall sit on thrones . . .” and some editorial

formulae.
OMISSIONS FROM Ὁ

The probability that neither Matthew nor Luke made any con-
siderable omissions from Q.

THE RECONSTRUCTED Q

List of passages from Luke probably derived from Q.

The document so reconstructed is one whose purpose and char-
acter is intelligible, in spite of its not having contained an account
of the Passion.

CHAPTER Χ
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF 9

THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF Ὁ

THE critic who wishes to reconstruct Q can start off at a run.
It having already been decided (p. 188) that Q contained an
account of the Baptism and Temptation, we find at once five
items which occur in the same order in both Matthew and Luke
—John’s Preaching, the Baptism, the Temptation, the Great
Sermon, and the Centurion’s Servant. Those portions of the
Sermon on the Mount which, though not contained in the
Sermon on the Plain, are yet from closeness of parallelism
obviously derived from Q, must, we have already seen, have
occurred in that document in some later context. In Luke
the next Q item after the Centurion’s Servant is John’s Message,
“Art thou he that should come?” This occurs somewhat
later in Matthew ; but the motive for postponement is obvious.
Jesus refers John’s disciples to the evidence afforded by certain
miracles (Mt. xi. 5); Matthew postpones the incident until he
has had time to give an example, taken from Mark, of each
of the miracles mentioned. Luke solves the same problem in
another way, by inserting (vii. 21) a statement, ‘“‘ In that hour
healed he many, etc.,”” which he doubtless supposed was implied
in the context. We infer that Luke’s order is original. Both
Matthew and Luke then concur again in the relative order in
which they introduce ‘“ Foxes have holes,” ‘‘ The harvest is
plenteous,” and the Mission Charge (which Luke gives as the

Address to the Seventy, but which Matthew conflates with
273 T

2714 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

Mark’s Charge to the Twelve) ; but it is noticeable that Matthew
places the Charge much earlier than does Mark, a rearrangement
of Mark which is probably due to the influence of the order
in Q. Matthew also expands the discourse with Q material
found elsewhere in Luke, as well as with material from other
sources.

If we ignore the Q matter added to the Mission Charge,
and also the section Lk. xi. 9-13, which Matthew has given
already in the Sermon on the Mount, the coincidence in order is
interrupted by the occurrence in Luke of two verses (Lk. x. 23-24)
which Matthew postpones to a later context. But of the next
five items, Woes to the Cities, “1 thank thee, Father,” Beelzebub
Controversy, Parable of Unclean Spirit, and Sign of Jonah,
the relative order (except that the last two are transposed) is
the same in both Gospels. The next item in both is the pair
of parables, the Mustard Seed and Leaven. This brings us into
Mt. xiii. Now we have observed (p. 161) that up to this point
Matthew seems to have rearranged the materials he took from
Mark with the greatest freedom; but that from chap. xiv.
onward he never departs from Mark’s order. We seem to have
lighted on the explanation. Matthew’s rearrangement of Mark
has been, at any rate partly,1 determined by the necessity of
combining Mark with Q. Thus the order of Q has evidently
suggested to him to anticipate the place of the Mission Charge
in Mark; and the late occurrence of the Mustard Seed and
Leaven in Q has led him to postpone Mark’s collection of
parables of the Kingdom, among which he desired to include
this pair from Q and others from M.

Most of the remaining Q material Matthew disposes of by
working it into one of his great blocks of discourse, the Sermon
on the Mount, v.-vii., the Mission Charge, x., or the Denunciation
of Judgement, xxiii.-xxv. The problem, then, of the original

1 The endeavour to group together representative miracles seems to have
been another motive for rearrangement, Cf. W. C. Allen, Commentary on
Matthew, p. xiv ff.

oH, X THE RECONSTRUCTION OF Q 275

order of Q resolves itself into the question, Are the additions
in Matthew’s versions of the Great Sermon and Mission Charge,
the half-dozen or so scattered sayings and the Q matter in
Mt. xxill.-xxv., in a more original context in Luke or in
Matthew ? If, however, we consider (1) Matthew’s proved habit
of piling up discourses compacted from Mark, Q and M; (2) the
fact that sayings like ‘“‘ Blessed are your eyes,” Mt. xiti. 16-17,
concerning Offences, Mt. xviii. 7—being embedded in extracts
from Mark—cannot possibly be in their original context as they
occur in Matthew, the presumption is plainly in favour of the
view that Luke’s order is the more original.

This conclusion is important for the light it throws on the
problem of the original extent of Q, for this, it will appear, is
more closely bound up than one would suppose with the
question of the original order. Luke in his use of Mark and
Proto-Luke differs from Matthew in three ways. (1) He as a
rule avoids conflating his sources. (2) He usually gives them
in approximately their original order. (3) He has a tendency
to follow one source at a time. It looks as if the person who
combined Q and L so as to form Proto-Luke, whether that
person was (as I believe) Luke himself or some one else, adhered
to the same methods.

ΤΈΧΤΟΑΙ, ASSIMILATION AND THE LorRD’s PRAYER

At this point Textual Criticism must be summoned to the
rescue of the puzzled Synoptic critic. The evidence accumulated
in Chap. XI. shows that assimilation between the texts of the
Gospels in parallel passages has operated along every line of
textual transmission, and that, though B has suffered less in
this way than any other MS., it has not entirely escaped. That
chapter being a study of minor agreements of Matthew and Luke
against Mark, the passages examined are necessarily ones in
which three Gospels were involved ; but obviously assimilation
would not be less likely to operate in passages contained only in

276 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 11

Matthew and Luke. If an example is required of the avoidance
by B of an assimilation found elsewhere, I would instance the
omission by B Syr. 8. of the words “ bread, will he give him a
stone, or,” Lk. xi. 11—an interpolation from the parallel Mt. vii. 9.
As an example of an assimilation which has infected Β δὶ but not
the mass of MSS. we may quote τασσόμενος, Mt. viii. 9—an
intrusion from Lk. vii. 8.1

But there are two cases where assimilation has affected
Bx etc. which are of real importance in the attempt to recon-
struct Q. The first is the version of the Voice from Heaven at
the Baptism, “ this day have I begotten thee,” Lk. iii. 22, which
has already been fully discussed, pp. 143, 188. All I need do
is to recall the fact that the acceptance of the Western reading
(in preference to the reading of By, which has been assimilated
to the other Gospels) proved that Luke derived his account
of the Baptism, not from Mark, but from Q. The second occurs
in the Lord’s Prayer. The liturgical use of the Lord’s Prayer in
the form in which it is given by Matthew would make assimila-
tion of the shorter form in Luke to that of Matthew more
inevitable than in any other passage in the Gospels. And
the great MSS. and early versions show it at work in a very
varied way.

In AD and the T.R. the assimilation of Lk. xi. 2 ff. to
Mt. vi. 9 ff. is almost complete. Syr. C. has effected it, but for
the clause “ Thy will be done, etc.” which it omits. δα curiously
enough inserts this clause, but leaves out ‘“‘ Deliver us from
evil” which Syr. C. contains; δὶ also joins BL Syr. 8. etc. in
omitting “our, which art in heaven” after “Father” in the
opening address. Β 1, Syr.8., and apparently the ancestor of
fam. Θ, agree in all the omissions.

Here we find that B, as usual, has been less affected by assimi-
lation than most other MSS.; but here also there is evidence

1 « After these things,” Mt. viii. 5, Syr. S. &, instead of “‘ He having entered
into Capernaum” (=Lk. vii. 1), and the omission by the same authorities of
καὶ πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται, Mt. xi. 5 (= Lk. vii. 22), are probably original read-
ings which have been altered through assimilation in all other MSS,

cH. Χ THE RECONSTRUCTION OF Q 277

that B has not entirely escaped. For 700, 162, instead of “‘ Thy
kingdom come,” read ‘‘ Thy holy spirit come upon us and cleanse
us” (ἐλθέτω τὸ πνεῦμα .. . ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς). And D has ἐλθέτω ἡ
βασιλεία ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, where, as Rendel Harris pointed out, ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς
is only explicable as a remainder of the other reading which a
corrector of some ancestor of D omitted to strike out. And this
reading was in the text of Luke used by Gregory of Nyssa in
Cappadocia in 395; he says so plainly twice, and moreover gives
no hint that he had even heard of any other reading. It is also
quoted by Maximus of Turin, ὁ. 450. So the reading was current
both in the East and in the West to quite a late period. But it
also stood in the text of Marcion (A.D. 140), and from Tertullian’s
comment on this it is not at all clear that his own text was
in this respect different from Marcion’s. Now in view of the
immense pressure of the tendency to assimilate the two versions
of this specially familiar prayer, and of the improbability that
various orthodox Fathers should have adopted (without know-
ing it) the text of Marcion, the probability is high that the
reading of 700, 162, which makes the Gospels differ most, is
what Luke wrote. Matthew’s version is here more original.
Now, even if we accept the reading of B, the difference between
the two versions of the Lord’s Prayer, Lk. xi. 1-4 and Mt. vi. 9-13,
is so great as to put a considerable strain on the theory that they
were both derived from the same written source. But, if we
accept the reading of 700 and its supporters, that theory becomes
quite impossible.1_ We next notice that in neither Matthew nor
Luke are the sayings in the immediate context derived from Ὁ ;
the Lord’s Prayer in ‘Matthew is in the middle of a block of M,
in Luke in the middle of a section of L, material. The natural
inference is that the respective versions belong to these two
sources. Iam aware that to some who have fallen into the habit
of regarding Q as the sole citadel of authenticity it will be some-

1 The rare word ἐπιούσιος remains as a remarkable point of contact between
the two versions. I think it not impossible that its presence in Luke is due
to an assimilation to Matthew which has infected all our authorities. ᾿

218 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

thing of a shock to realise that the document did not include the
Lord’s Prayer. I would suggest, however, that the real effect
of the discovery is to enhance our conception of the value of the
special sources of Matthew and Luke.

Five Buiocxs or Q

We now turn to the text of Luke and discover that the
assignment of the Lord’s Prayer to L, instead of to Q, makes
x, 25-xi. 8a single block of L. Then we perceive that in Luke’s
“Central Section’ the Q and the L material tends to sort itself
out into alternate blocks—the five blocks ix. 57-x. 24, xi. 9-xi.
10, xii. 22-xii. 59, and perhaps xiii. 18-xiii. 35, being in the
main derived from Q, while the intervening blocks are mainly
1, There are never more than four, and rarely more than
two, consecutive verses in any of these sections which do not
also occur in Matthew. We may conjecture, then, that they
are really solid blocks of Q, from which Matthew, in the course
of rearranging to fit into his great discourses, has omitted a few
odd verses. This gives us a working hypothesis with which to
start our quest.

The provisional hypothesis that the five passages just indi-
cated are solid blocks of Q receives a good deal of confirmation
from a closer scrutiny of a number of the short passages within
these blocks, which Matthew omits, but for which he substitutes
something derived either from Mark or M which might well be
regarded as an equivalent. These are as follows :

(a) Lk. x. 16 ὁ ἀκούων ὑμῶν. For this Mt. x. 40 substitutes
ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς from Mk. ix. 37.

(Ὁ) Lk. xi. 27-28. An unknown woman cries, “ Blessed is the
womb that bare thee . . .” Our Lord replies, “ Nay, blessed are
they that hear the word of God...” In Luke this follows
immediately after the parable of the Unclean Spirit. Matthew
immediately after this same parable (Mt. xii. 46-50) inserts our
Lord’s reply to the announcement, ‘‘ Thy mother and brethren

cH. x THE RECONSTRUCTION OF Q 279

without seek thee,” from Mk. iii. 31, a different incident but one of
which the moral is the same, “‘ whoso will do the will of my Father
. . . the same is my brother and sister and mother.” As there is
no connection of thought between this and the preceding parable,
the position of Matt. xii. 46-50 can only be due to a deliberate
substitution of the Marcan for the Q version of the saying as to
what constitutes true relationship to Christ.

(c) Lk. xi. 37-38, on not washing. before meat. Matthew
omits this, but in xv. 2 ff. has a much longer discussion of this point
derived from Mk. vii. 1 ff. which Luke omits.

(4) The same thing probably applies to the “ Leaven of the
Pharisees”’ (Lk. xii. 1b). The phrase stood both in Ὁ and Mark.
Matthew omits it where it occurs in Q, because he has it in a more
meaningful context, xvi. 6, from Mk. viii. 15.4

(e) Lk. xii. 35-38, “loins girded, lights burning.” Matthew
leaves this out ; but immediately after the (Q) paragraph which
follows in Luke (Lk. xii. 39-46=Mt. xxiv. 43-51) he inserts
the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, which contains the
same point as Lk. xii. 35-38, but considerably amplified. Accord-
ingly “‘ substitution ᾿᾿ rather than “‘ omission ” again seems the
proper description of his procedure.

(ἢ) Lk. xiii. 25-27. The main ideas, and even the more striking
phrases ‘“‘ open,” “1 know you not,” “depart from me,” occur
in the Apocalyptic parables of Matthew; cf. Mt. xxv. 11-12, 41.

(4) Lk. xii. 30, “the last shall be first.” There are two
reasons—in addition to the fact that it occurs in Luke in
connection with Q sayings—for referring this saying to Q. Mark
x. 31, followed by Matthew in the same context, Mt. xix. 30, has
the saying, but in the reverse order, “‘ the first shall be last.”
But Matthew repeats the saying in another context, xx. 16, but
this time he gives the words in the same order as Luke. This then
will be the Ὁ order. Luke has it in a Q context (xiii. 30); but

1 The Marcan equivalent of both (c) and (4) occur in Luke’s “ great omis-
sion” of Mark which I have argued (p. 175 ff.) did not stand in the copy of
Mark which Luke used.

280 THE FOUR GOSPELS

PT. τί

note that, when he is copying the context in which it occurs in
Mark (Lk. xviii. 30), he leaves out just this one sentence—
evidently because he has already recorded the saying in its

Q form.

(h) Lk. xii. 11-12.

And when they bring
you before the syna-
gogues, and the rulers,
and the authorities, be
not anxious how or
what ye shall answer,
cr what ye shall say:
for the Holy Spirit
shall teach you in that
very hour what ye
ought to say.

We note Mark and

Mk. xiii. 11.

And when they lead
you to judgement, and
deliver you up, be
not anxious before-
hand what ye shall
speak: but whatso-
ever shall be given you
in that hour, that
speak ye: for it is not
ye that speak, but the
Holy Ghost.

Luke are furthest

Mt. x. 19-20.

But when they de-
liver you up, be not
anxious how or what
ye shall speak: for it
shall be given you in
that hour what ye shall
speak. For it is not
ye that speak, but the
Spirit of your Father
that speaketh in you.

apart. Matthew is

almost verbally identical with Mark.1 The only verbal agreement
of Matthew and Luke against Mark is “how or what”; but
nothing can be inferred from this since πῶς 7 is omitted in Mark
by ab k Syr. 8. Cypr. and ἢ τί in Luke by Ὁ 1 157 Old Lat. Syr. 8.
and C. Itis, however, noticeable that in both Matthew and Luke
the saying occurs in the same discourse as, though separated by
a few verses from, “ there is nothing hidden which shall not be
revealed,” etc. (Mt. x. 26 ff. = Lk. xii. 2 ff.), As there is no obvious
connection of thought to suggest bringing the two together, the
view that Lk. xii. 11-12 stood in Q and formed part of the block
of Q material, xii. 2-10, would explain the collocation in both
Gospels. The saying will then be one of those which in a slightly
different form occurred in both Mark and Q.

The reader who has followed the above with a Synopsis and a

1 In Lk. xxi. 14-15, which is the actual parallel to Mt. xiii. 11, there is a
kind of paraphrase, “Settle it therefore in your own hearts, not to meditate
beforehand how to answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all
your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to gainsay.” I suggest that
Luke, recollecting that he had already copied from Proto-Luke a sentence
practically identical with that in Mk. xiii. 11, purposely paraphrased Mark’s
wording here so as to avoid tautologous repetition.

cH, x THE RECONSTRUCTION OF Q 281

marked copy of the Gospels will see that the facts noted all tend
to justify our provisional assignment to Q of the five specified
blocks. I proceed to show that, if we invoke the principle of
parallel versions worked out in the previous chapters, we discover
phenomena which not only add further confirmation to the above
hypothesis, but also help to identify as Q certain passages of
Luke which are outside these blocks.

OVERLAPPING OF Q anp M

There are certain cases where the parallels between Matthew
and Luke are not close enough to make derivation from the same
written source probable, but where the hypothesis which most
easily explains the phenomena is that the saying stood in both
Q and M—Luke reproducing the version of Q, Matthew con-
flating Q and M.

(a) The saying about Forgiveness is perhaps the clearest
example. In Lk. xvii. 1-4 this saying follows immediately after
one about Offences, a version of which seems to have stood in both
Qand Mark. In Mt. xviii. 15 ff. also the saying about Forgive-
ness follows that about Offences in the same discourse—only with
half-a-dozen verses (from Mark and M) intervening. Seeing there
is no very obvious connection of thought between the two topics,
the connection (Offences—Forgiveness) must have been made
in the common source Q. How, then, are we to explain the fact
that, while the Offences saying is virtually identical in Matthew
and Luke, that on Forgiveness appears in versions exceptionally
diverse ? I suggest that M also contained a version of the latter
᾿ saying, which Matthew on the whole prefers ; and this is not pure
conjecture, for in the fragments of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews we have evidence that this saying was in circulation in
more than one version. It will be instructive to set the three
versions side by side.

1 Mk, ix. 42 has only one member of the double antithetical saying which
occurs Lk. xvii. 1-2, Mt. xviii. 6-7.

282
Mt. xviii. 15-16, 21-22.

And if thy brother
sin against thee, go,
shew him his fault be-
tween thee and him
alone: if he hear thee,
thou hast gained thy
brother. But if he
hear thee not,take with
thee ohe or two more,
that at the mouth of
two witnesses . .

Then came Peter,
and said to him, Lord,
how oft shall my
brother sin against me,
and I forgive him? un-
til seven times? Jesus
saith unto him, I say
not unto thee, Until

seven times; but,
Until seventy times
seven.

Lk. xvii. 3-4.

Take heed to your-
selves: if thy brother
sin, rebuke him; and
if he repent, forgive
him. And if he sin
against thee seven
times in the day, and
seven times turn again
to thee, saying, I re-
pent; thou shalt for-
give him.

THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IL

Ev. Heb. (quoted
by Jerome).

Tf thy brother shall
have sinned in word
and given thee satis-
faction, seven times in
a day receive him.
His disciple Simon said
unto him, Seven times
in a day? The Lord
answered and said un-
to him, Yea, I say
unto thee until seventy
times seven; for even
in the prophets after
they had been anointed
by the Holy Spirit,
there was found sermo
peccati (probably an
Aramaism = ‘ matter
of sin,’ not merely =
“sinful speech ’’).

(b) The Parable of the Pounds=Talents. A glance at a

Synopsis shows that in the latter part of this parable the verbal
agreements between the two versions are such as to favour,
though not actually to compel, the assumption of a common
written source. But the divergences between the versions in the
first half are so great as to make this assumption highly improbable.
Here again the Gospel according to the Hebrews may help us.
Eusebius tells us that the Parable of the Talents stood in this
Gospel but “‘ told of three servants, one who devoured his Lord’s
substance with harlots and flute girls, one who gained profit
manifold, and one who hid his talent; and then how one was
accepted, one merely blamed, and one shut up in prison.” Is it
not possible that M had a version something like this and that
Matthew has conflated Q and M, following M more closely at the
beginning and Q at the end? Luke, then, preserves approxi-
mately the Q form. Only the very daring, nowadays, venture on

cH. x THE RECONSTRUCTION OF Q 283

speculations in regard to the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Nevertheless, I would in parenthesi throw out the suggestion that
the same Jerusalem tradition which we have postulated as the
source M used by Matthew was incorporated in, or in some
other way affected the text of, that lost Gospel. At any rate
we have here evidence, outside the Synoptic Gospels, for the
contention of the previous chapter that there were in circulation
divergent versions of exactly those of our Lord’s sayings in which
the versions in Matthew and Luke differ too widely to be referred
to a common written source.

(c) The two versions of the saying about “the strait gate,”
Lk. xiii. 23-24, cf. Mt. vii. 13-14, cannot reasonably be referred
to a common source.

Lk. xiii. 23-24. Mt. vii. 13-14.

And one said unto him, Lord, are Enter ye in by the narrow gate:
they few that be saved? And he for wide [is the gate], and broad is
said unto them, Strive to enter in the way, that leadeth to destruc-
by the narrow door: for many,I tion, and many there be that enter
say unto you, shallseek toenterin, in thereby. For narrow [is the
and shall not be able. gate], and straitened the way, that

leadeth unto life, and few there
be that find it.

But Luke’s version comes in the middle of a section of which the
beginning (Mustard Seed and Leaven), xiii. 18-21, the middle,
xiii. 28-29, and the end, xii. 34-35 (“ Jerusalem, Jerusalem ”’),
are certainly Q, and of which, as we shall see later, much of
the rest is probably Q; the probability, then, is that Luke here
also follows Q. But the words ἡ πύλη (‘is the gate’’)
are omitted in Matthew on their second (ἢ Old Lat.) and
third (544 Old Lat.) occurrence. If this reading is original,
Q had the Lucan saying about “the narrow gate,’ M had one
quite different—the antithesis between the “broad and the

1 The theory that the Gospel written in Chaldee characters here quoted
by Eusebius was not the same as that quoted by Jerome seems to me un-
proved; but in any case the evidence for the existence of divergent traditions
of our Lord’s sayings is in no way impaired.

284 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT.

narrow ways.” (The contrast of the Two Ways occurs in the
Didache and elsewhere.) Matthew has conflated Q and M.t

(d) A fourth example of the same kind may be Lk. xii.
32-34, “ Fear not, little flock . . .” cf. Mt. vi. 19-21, “ Lay not
up for yourselves treasures on earth... .” In the first two
verses the differences between Matthew and Luke are con-
siderable, but the third verse in each is practically identical,
“‘ Where your treasure is there will your heart be also.” Matthew
has disconnected this verse from the discourse, ‘‘ Be not anxious ”
(Mt. vi. 25-34), of which it forms the concluding sentence in Luke.
Here the combination of variation in order with diversity of
wording suggests that Matthew is conflating Q and M—in which
case Luke may be presumed to follow Q.

(e) Mk. xi. 22-23.

And Jesus answer-
ing saith unto them,
Have faith in God.
Verily I say unto you,
Whosoever shall say
unto this mountain, Be
thou taken up and cast
into the sea ; and shall
not doubt in his heart,
but shall believe that
what he saith cometh
to pass ; he shall have
it.

Mt. xvii. 19-20.

Then came the dis-
ciples to Jesus apart,
and said, Why could
not we cast it out?
And he saith unto
them, Because of your
little faith: for verily
I say unto you, If ye
have faith as a grain of
mustard seed, ye shall
say unto this moun-
tain, Remove hence to
yonder place; and it

Lk. xvii. 5-6.

And the apostles said
unto the Lord, Increase
our faith. And the
Lord said, If ye have
faith as a grain of
mustard seed, ye would
say unto this sycamine
tree, Be thou rooted
up, and be thou planted
in the sea; and it
would have obeyed
you,

shall remove; and
nothing shall be im-
possible unto you.

Here Matthew agrees with Mark in speaking of the “ mountain,”
with Luke in “the grain of mustard seed.” The most natural
conclusion would be that Luke gives the saying as it stood in Q,
while Matthew, as usual where Mark and Q overlap, conflates
the two. In further confirmation of this we note that in Luke
the saying occurs immediately after xvii. 1-4, which we decided

1 The relevance of the textual variants was pointed out to me by
Prof. Dodd.

cH. x THE RECONSTRUCTION OF Q 285

above was from Q; also that Matthew inserts it in a context,
derived indeed from Mark, but occurring much earlier (Mk. ix.
28), which is the first occasion appropriate for the insertion,
from another source, of a saying on faith.

SCATTERED FRAGMENTS

The observation that Luke in general seems to follow one
source at a time and to reproduce it in its original order has
proved a valuable clue. But a generalisation of this kind must
not be made a fetish. There is always an incalculable element in
the working of the human mind ; and there is no reason to suppose
that in following one source at a time Luke was adhering to a
consciously formulated principle. It was merely that he refrained
from rearranging or conflating sources where there was no special
reason for doing so. But to any rule of average human behaviour
there are always some exceptions; and there are several sayings in
Luke which there is good reason to assign to Q, although they are
not found embedded in a mass of other material from that source.

(a) “‘ No man can serve two masters,” Lk. xvi. 13. This is
very close in wording to Mt. vi. 24, and is therefore to be referred
to Q; but its context in Luke, immediately following the parable
of the Unjust Steward, is obviously suggested by the accidental
occurrence of the rare word Mammon both in this saying of Q
and in the parable.

(6) The saying ‘‘ Whoso exalteth himself shall be humbled . . .”
occurs twice in Luke, xiv. 11, xviii. 14. As it occurs in Mt.
xxiii. 12, it probably stood in Q; although, for a short
proverbial saying of this kind, there is really no need to
postulate a written source at all.

(c) The pair of sayings, Lk. xiv. 26-27, “If any one cometh
unto me and hateth not his father, etc.’ and ““ Whoso beareth not
his cross,” occur together and in the same order in Mt. x. 37-38.
Hence, though the wording differs to a certain extent, they are
probably to be referred to Q. Here again their present position
in Luke seems to be due to their eminent fitness as an introduction

286 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

to two parables—the Tower Builder and the King making War—
which emphasise the same idea of counting the cost. I would
remark that, if they are Q, Luke’s harsh-sounding “ hateth his
father ” obviously preserves the wording of the original more
closely than Matthew, ‘He that loveth father, etc., more than me.”
The saying about carrying the cross occurs also in Mark (viii. 34)
in a slightly different version—which is copied by both Matthew
and Luke in the same context (Mt. xvi. 24, Lk. ix. 23)—in spite of
the fact that they give another (? from Q) version elsewhere,
Mt. x. 38=Lk. xiv. 271

(d) The saying about Salt, Lk. xiv. 34-35, shows several agree-
ments between, Luke’s version and that in Mt. v. 13 against the
version of Mk. ix. 50, and also Matthew and Luke agree in
omitting it in the context parallel to Mark’s, which, looks as if
both had already extracted it from Q. It is separated in Luke
fromthe saying about carrying the cross by the Tower Builder and
its twin parable. But if, as it stood in Q, it followed immediately
after Lk. xiv. 27, its meaning would be quite clear. In that con-
nection, ‘‘ Salt is good, but if the salt have lost its savour .. .”
would naturally mean, “ Disciples are good, but if they have lost
the power to carry the cross they cease to be a leaven to the lump
of humanity.” It would seem to follow that the words “ Salt
is good,” καλὸν τὸ ἅλα, stood in Q as well as in Mark; but that
Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount has altered them to “ Ye are
the salt of the earth” in order to make the interpretation quite
clear, the wording of the alteration being suggested to him by that
of the Msaying “ Ye are the light . . .” to which he has prefixed it.

(e) The three sayings, Lk. xvi. 16-18, are perhaps from Ὁ.
Q, so far as one can make out, was a collection of the “ Wise
Sayings ” of Christ, comparable to a book like Proverbs or the
Pirge Aboth, with very little attempt at arrangement. And
what we have in the passage of Luke is three separate aphorisms
(the Law and the Prophets until John, the passing of the Law,
Divorce), the only connection between which is that they are

1 The passages are printed in parallel columns in Hawkins, Hor. Sym? p. 86.

on. Χ THE RECONSTRUCTION OF Q 287

epigrammatic rulings on disputed points connected with the Law.
In Matthew they appear in a somewhat modified form and in
three quite different contexts, worked into connected discourses.
The Lucan version looks on the whole} more primitive; but the
modifications of it in Matthew do not go beyond what an editor,
who, like Matthew, evidently felt that he was also to some extent
an interpreter, might consider legitimate.

(f) Where Matthew has fitted an isolated saying into a new
context—whether in Mark or in a larger block of Q—some modifi-
cation of its wording might be required to make it harmonise
with its new context. In such cases, therefore, we must recognise
that a greater divergence than elsewhere between the parallels
in Matthew and Luke is compatible with derivation from Q. In
the light of this reflection we may consider certain sayings found
in Mt. xxiv. 25-28, 37-41, ingeniously fitted into the “ Little
Apocalypse ” of Mk. xiii. in such a way as to amplify certain ideas
taken over from Mark. All these sayings occur in the discourse
Lk. xvii. 22-37, but somewhat differently worded. Can we, in
spite of the considerable verbal differences, hold that the whole
section, Lk. xvii. 22-37, which has been described as “‘ the
Apocalypse of Q” has been legitimately so named ? I think so.
For if Q had contained an Apocalypse, Matthew would certainly
have conflated it with the Apocalypse of Mark. If it stood in Q
at all, Lk. xvii. 22-37 must have stood at, or very near, the end.
That is an additional reason for supposing the passage stood in Q;
for, in view of the absorbing interest of the early Church in the
subject of the Parousia, we should naturally expect to discover
a quantity of Apocalyptic matter at the end of any primitive
“Gospel.” For that same reason 1 am inclined to think that Q
not only contained, but actually ended with, the Parable of the
Pounds, the moral of which—‘ Occupy till I come ”—would be so
extraordinarily appropriate to the hopes and circumstances of
the time. This presumption is distinctly strengthened by the

1 Not always, 6.0. Lk. xvi. 17 ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίζεται is a Lucan
phrase—an attempt to explain an extremely obscure saying.

288

THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 0

fact that the Didache, a first-century manual of Christian instruc-
tion, ends with an Apocalyptic passage.
There remains to be considered one other saying which occurs

in both Matthew and Luke.

Mt. xix. 28.

And Jesus said unto them, Verily
Isay unto you, that ye which have
followed me, in the regeneration
when the Son of man shall sit on
the throne of his glory, ye also shall
sit wpon twelve thrones, judging the

Lk. xxii. 29-30.

And I appoint unto you a king-
dom, even as my Father appointed
unto me, that ye may eat and
drink at my table in my kingdom ;
and ye shall sit on thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel.

twelve tribes of Israel.

Observe that, apart from the words in italics, there are no
points of contact between these parallels. No doubt the words
found in both are the most striking, but to assume that these
alone stood in Q and that all the rest in both Matthew and Luke
is “ editorial ” is a reductio ad absurdum of the theory of a written
source, only possible under the distorting influence of an a priort
Two Document Hypothesis. Rather, this is a good example
of the currency of widely different versions of the same saying ;
and since neither in Matthew nor Luke is it found in a Q
context, we naturally assign the two versions to M and to L.

In the above survey no notice has been taken of short
passages, evidently inserted in order to break the monotony of
discourses following one another with no obvious connection.
Phrases like ‘‘ He said to the disciples,” “‘ He said to the multi-
tude,” are evidently merely inferences from the context of the
sayings, made explicit in words to improve the literary form.
Probably the same thing applies to some longer phrases like
Lk. xiv. 25, “There were journeying with him great crowds; and
he turned and said unto them,” or the triple “ He said to the
guests,”’ “‘ He said to the host,” “ One sitting at meat said to him,”
Lk. xiv.7,12,15. The occurrence of stylistic improvements of this
kind has prejudiced many critics against Luke’s version of Q as
compared with that of Matthew. But these are obvious and
superficial adornments easily separable from the actual saying.

cH. Χ THE RECONSTRUCTION OF 9 289

And when one studies the actual Logia of Christ, the advantage
in respect of accuracy of preservation of the original form is, I
believe, more often with Luke. “ Blessed are ye poor, ye that
hunger ” is surely more original than “ poor in spirit ” or “‘ hunger
after righteousness”’; ‘‘hateth father and mother” is more
original than “ loveth father and mother more than me.”

OMISSIONS FROM Q

The question must now be raised, Have any sections of Q
which have been completely ignored by Matthew been preserved
in Luke and wice versa? To this I am inclined to answer, Very
few. Before I had disentangled myself from the Two Document
Hypothesis I used to suppose that the more Judaistic sayings in
Matthew were probably in Q, but omitted by Luke. But reasons
have been given above for assigning these to M. Of his other
source, Mark, Matthew omits very little, so the probability is that
he would omit very little of Q, unless to substitute for what was
omitted something which he regarded as a superior version of the
same thing. Nevertheless, as he seems completely to omit a few
items in Mark which Luke retains, the same thing has probably
happened in regard to Q. To identify these, we return to the
examination of those passages in Luke’s great blocks of Q which
have no sort of equivalent in Matthew. But we cannot assume
that all of them stood in Q. We have seen above that Lk. xiv.
34-35 probably stood in Q followed immediately by xiv. 26-27.
If so, then we have evidence that Luke (or the compiler of Proto-
Luke) sometimes allowed himself to interpolate into a Q section
highly appropriate matter (e.g. xiv. 28-33) from L. That shows
that, on occasion, he would break away from his general rule of
following one source at a time. Accordingly we cannot be sure
that Lk. ix. 61-62, “Νο man putting his hand to the plough,”
and x. 18-20, “1 saw Satan fall,” xii. 47-50, xu. 54-57, have not
similarly been interpolated from L into what looked like highly
appropriate contexts of Q. Inthe Ozford Studies I endeavoured

290 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. II

to find reasons why, even if they should be in Q, Matthew should
have omitted them. I now feel less confidence in their validity.
To feel confidently that any at all notable saying in Q was
omitted by Matthew one must see clearly that the saying would
lend itself to an interpretation by the faithful which he definitely
disliked. Two such passages there are—Lk. ix. 51-56, the
Samaritan village, and xvii. 20-21, “The Kingdom of God cometh
not with observation . . . the Kingdom of God is within you.”
Both of these stand at the head of a block of Q material, and
both are passages which Matthew would have had good reason to
omit. The one involves a rebuke to the Apostles, and Matthew
elsewhere tends to tone down or omit such.1_ The other suggested
a view of the Kingdom which Matthew, who more than any other
evangelist emphasises the objective catastrophic side of the
Apocalyptic hope, believed to be incorrect.

My view on the question of whether Luke omitted any
substantial amount of Q has been modified by three new considera-
tions. (a) The evidence submitted previously (cf. p. 175 ff.) that
the long section Mk. vi. 48-viii. 26 did not stand in the copy of
Mark used by Luke. If one supposed that Luke was capable of
leaving out over 70 continuous verses in one source, he would be
capable of making drastic excision in another. Apart, however,
from this one passage, Luke’s omissions—as distinct from sub-
stitution of parallel versions—of material found in Mark are on
a very small scale. (b) If I am right in supposing that Q and L
were combined into one document by Luke himself before he
came across Mark, he would not at that earlier date be em-
barrassed by the problem of getting all his material into a
roll of manageable size, as probably was the case at the later
stage. Hence he had a motive for omission at this later stage,
when he expanded Proto-Luke with extracts from Mark (which,
moreover, he seems to have regarded as a source of subordinate
authority) which would have been inoperative at the time when
he combined Q and L. (ὁ) If there is a shadow of ground for the

1 Hawkins, Hor. Syn.” p. 121.

OH. Χ THE RECONSTRUCTION OF Q 291

guess that Q was the old Gospel of the pro-Gentile church of
Antioch, it would not have contained Judaistic passages which
Luke would have wanted to excise.t Accordingly the prob-
ability is high that the passages of Luke that we can identify
as Q represent that document, not only approximately in its
original order, but very nearly in its original extent. And seeing
that Matthew’s method of rearranging sources led necessarily
to considerable verbal modification, it is probable that, allowance
being made for a slight polishing of the Greek, the form in which
the sayings appear in Luke is also on the whole more original.

THE RECONSTRUCTED Q

For the convenience of the reader I append a list of the pass-
ages I should assign to Q. Brackets signify considerable doubt :
Lk. iii. 2-9, (10-14), 16-17, 21-22; iv. 1-l6a; vi. 20-vii. 10;
vii. 18-35; ix. (51-56), 57-60, (61-62); x. 2-16, (17-20), 21-24 ;
xi. 9-52; xii. la-12, 22-59; xiii. 18-35; xiv. 11, 26-27, 34-35 ;
xvi. 13, 16-18; xvi. 1-6, 20-37; xix. 11-27. Unbracketed
verses = 272.

As thus reconstructed, Q is a document the purpose and
character of which are perfectly intelligible. It is comparable
to an Old Testament prophetic book like Jeremiah, consisting
principally of discourse, but with an occasional narrative to ex-
plain some piece of teaching. The Baptism and Temptation are
described because the author regarded these as virtually the “call”’
to the Messianic office. The author would regard them, like the
“call” of the Prophet so often given in the Old Testament, as of
great apologetic value as evidence of the Divine authorisation of
our Lord’s mission. The relatively large amount of space given to
John the Baptist, and the emphasis on his relations with our Lord,
suggest that Q was composed at a time and place where the

1 This argument might appear to prove too much, for the passages do
occur in the probably Antiochene Gospel of Matthew. But their presence in
Matthew may well be due to their occurrence in a document already too
ancient to be ignored. Matthew prefers to counteract, e.g. the prohibition to
preach to Gentiles and Samaritans, x. 5, is revoked by the command to preach
to all nations, xxviii. 19.

292 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 0

prestige of John was very considerable. There is here a contrast
between Mark and Q.1 In Q John’s testimony to Christ is
appealed to, because among those for whom it was written “all
held John to be a prophet.”” In Mark the apologetic motive for
mentioning John is that he fulfilled the prophecy of the fore-
runner ; that is to say, it is not John’s personal prestige which
is appealed to, but the fact that his coming at all was part of that
“programme,” so to speak, of events, anciently foretold and in
the career of our Lord recently fulfilled, which was the main plank
of early Christian apologetic. It is the difference between the
point of view of Rome c. a.p. 65 and Syria (where John’s name
and following were great) fifteen or twenty years earlier.

The absence in the Passion story of any substantial agree-
ments of Matthew and Luke against Mark, in the view of most
scholars, compels us to conclude that Q contained no account of
the Passion. We must ask, Why? I think the answer must be
sought in two directions.

(1) The Passion and its redemptive significance could
readily be taught in oral tradition. But ethical teaching
implies detailed instruction which sooner or later necessitates
a written document. Such a document is found in the
Didache, which obviously presupposes a general knowledge of
the central facts of the Christian story. Similarly Q was
probably written to supplement an oral tradition.

(2) Of less weight is the consideration that, while to Paul
the centre of the Gospel was the Cross of Christ, to the other
Apostles it was His Second Coming. Peter’s speeches in the
Acts show that to them, as to other Jews, the Crucifixion was a
difficulty. It had been cancelled, so to speak, by the Resurrec-
tion. It had been foretold by the Prophets, and this showed
that it was somehow part of the Divine Plan; but it was still
one of those calamities which darken men’s understanding of His
Purpose, rather than the one act that has unveiled the mystery.

1 The point is elaborated in my Essay on “ The Literary Evolution of the
Gospel” in Ozford Studies, p. 210 ff.

ΧΙ

THE MINOR AGREEMENTS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE
AGAINST MARK

SYNOPSIS

IRRELEVANT AGREEMENTS

Since both Matthew and Luke consistently compress Mark,
the occurrence not infrequently of coincident omissions is only to be
expected. Mark’s Greek is colloquial, Matthew and Luke revise
throughout in the direction of the literary idiom. The results of
independent correction of style and grammar must, in a long docu-
ment, occasionally coincide if the revision is sufficiently thorough.

DrEcEPTIVE AGREEMENTS

Certain agreements, which, at first sight, are too striking to be
attributed to coincidence, are shown, on closer inspection, to be
alterations which would naturally occur to independent editors.
But, on any view, none of the agreements so far studied, being of the
nature of editorial improvements, can be explained by the hypothesis
of an Ur-Marcus, though they might be explained by Sanday’s
hypothesis that the text of Mark used by Matthew and Luke had
undergone a slight stylistic revision.

INFLUENCE OF Q

In passages where, on other grounds, we have reason to believe
that Mark and Q overlapped, agreements of Matthew and Luke
against Mark may be explained by the influence of Q; but it is
unscientific to invoke this explanation in other contexts.

TEXTUAL CORRUPTION

The most probable explanation of the remaining agreements is to
be sought in the domain of Textual Criticism.
293

294 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 0

(1) Any corruption of the original text of Mark would leave
Matthew and Luke in agreement against Mark in any passage where
they had happened both to copy the text of Mark in its original form.

(2) Assimilation of parallel passages, wherever it occurred between
Matthew and Luke, would be likely to create an Agreement against
Mark.

(3) Since assimilation is the one form of corruptior which is
likely to occur independently in more than one line of manuscript
tradition, the grouping of MSS. evidence in accordance with local
texts is specially important. It is not the number of MSS. which
support a given reading, but the local text or texts they represented,
that matters.

Tue MS. EvipEnce

A survey of all the significant Minor Agreements not previously
discussed, reveals the fact that there is usually MS. evidence in
favour of the view that the agreement of Matthew and Luke against
Mark did not occur in the original text of the Gospels, but is the
result of scribal alteration, from which a few MSS. here and there
have escaped.

Some Resipuaut Cases

Special discussion of the reading “‘ Who is he that struck thee ? ”
Mt. xxvi. 68=Lk. xxi. 64.

The significance of agreements more minute than those examined
above cannot be considered apart from the general fact of the
abundance of such minutie of variation in all MSS., even between
B and δ.

CoNCLUSION

The bearing of the above examples on the theory and practice
of textual criticism. The dependence of Matthew and Luke on
Mark may be taken as an assured result, which in doubtful cases may
enable us to decide between rival variants in different MSS.; and
is thus of material assistance in the determination of the true text
of the Gospels,

CHAPTER XI

THE MINOR AGREEMENTS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE
AGAINST MARK

Many years ago Dr. Sanday expressed the opinion that the
solution of this problem would be found in the sphere of Textual
Criticism; and from time to time Professors Burkitt and Turner
have called attention to facts pointing in this direction. But, so
far as I am aware, no consistent attempt has been made to explore
the question thoroughly in the light of the latest researches into
the grouping of MSS. and the history of the text.

IRRELEVANT AGREEMENTS

Before, however, attempting to do this, I must elaborate the
point made in Chap. VII. that the majority of these agreements
do not require any explanation at all. Matthew and Luke, it
must be realised, were not mere scribes commissioned to produce
an accurate copy of a particular MS. ; they were historians com-
bining and freely rewriting their authorities, and, what for our
immediate quest is even more important, consistently condensing
them. From this certain consequences follow.

(1) Compression can only be effected by the omission of
details regarded as unimportant or of words and phrases deemed
to be superfluous. Hence it would have been quite impossible
for two persons to abbreviate practically every paragraph in the
whole of Mark without concurring in a very large number of their
omissions. In a diffuse style like that of Mark certain passages

are so obviously redundant that they would be dispensed with
295

290 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. τί

by any one desiring to be concise. Coincidence in omission
proves nothing as to the source used.

(2) Mark’s native tongue was Aramaic and his Greek is quite the
most colloquial? in the New Testament. Thestyle and vocabulary
of Matthew and Luke, by reason of the subject treated and the
sources used, is naturally coloured to some extent by Semitic
idiom ; but in the main they write the κοινή, 1.6. the ordinary
Greek of the educated man of the period who was not of set
purpose trying to revive the Greek of the classical age. What
would happen if two such writers were working over the narrative
of Mark? I may illustrate from a personal experience. The late
Professor Troeltsch sent me a literal translation, made in Berlin,
of an article of his in order that I might correct it for publication
in an English magazine. Wherever I noticed a grammatical
construction possible, but unusual; a phrase, passable but not
idiomatic; a word understandable, but not the most appropriate—
I substituted what seemed the natural English expression. Now
in any language there are certain constructions and turns of
expression which come naturally to all educated men ; there are
certain words which are the only appropriate ones in certain
contexts. Suppose that the article in question had been cor-
rected, not by me, but by the editor of the magazine, the passages
that would have struck him as needing correction would not
have been exactly the same as those which struck my notice,
but they must have coincided to a considerable extent; for it
would be precisely the words or sentences which were most
glaringly unidiomatic which would be likely to attract the
attention of us both, The way in which he would have corrected
them would in most cases have differed slightly from mine, but
in a minority of cases it would have been identical, for the simple
reason that there are certain standard differences between the
turns of expression naturally used in German and English sen-
tences which would cause any two Englishmen, aiming at making
a translation more idiomatic, to make precisely the same alteration.

1 The Greek of the Apocalypse is not so much colloquial as Semitic.

ox. xt MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 297

Now Mark’s Greek is that of a person who had been brought
up to think in Aramaic ; and I conceive that Matthew and Luke
would have been on the look out to correct his unidiomatic style
much in the way I have described. Hence, where the process of
correction is carried on with a document of the length of Mark’s
Gospel, it is impossible that two correctors should not frequently
concur in making the same or substantially the same alteration.
In Aramaic the verb is conjugated on a radically different principle
from the Greek; it is peculiarly poor in the variety of particles,
conjunctions, prepositions, for the number and variety of which
Greek is so conspicuous, and the construction of sentences is far
looser. Hence changes intended to make the Semitic style of
Mark more idiomatically Greek would all be in the same general
direction. The “ historic present,” for example, a fairly common
idiom in Latin, is comparatively rare in Greek, as it is in English ;
but Mark uses it, apparently as the equivalent of the Aramaic
“* participle,” 151 times.1 Matthew cuts these down to 78, Luke
to 4. Obviously, then, Matthew and Luke cannot but concur
in the alteration of tense upwards of 60 times, though as they
often change the word as well as the tense the resultant agree-
ments do not always strike the eye. But the historic present
most often used by Mark is λέγει ; the natural change of tense
to the aorist results in εἶπεν appearing some 20 times in both
Matthew and Luke—thus creating to the eye of the English
reader an appearance of agreement against Mark which is quite
illusory. Another stylistic improvement made innumerable
times by Matthew and Luke is the substitution of δέ for καί;
what wonder if about 20 times they both do so in the same
place?? Yet another of their most frequently recurring
alterations is the substitution of the favourite Greek con-
struction of a participle with a finite verb for the Semitic
usage of two finite verbs connected with the conjunction καί.

1 Hawkins, Hor. Syn. p. 143 ff.
2 The Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic Problem, p. 17,
Ἐς de Witt Burton, Chicago, 1904.

298 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 1

Is it surprising that 5 times they happen to do so in the same
context ?

Mark, like the Old Testament writers, leaves the subject of
the sentence to be inferred from the context more frequently
than would be quite natural in Greek or in English. Thus
Matthew and Luke often make “he” or “they” clearer by
introducing a name or title. And, as they do this often, it is
inevitable that sometimes they should do it in the same place ;
for the places where they would wish to make the insertion
would naturally be those where the sense seemed specially to
require the addition, and these places would be fixed, not by their
arbitrary selection, but by the degree of obscurity in a particular
context. We need not, then, suspect collusion, if we occasionally
find that Matthew and Luke agree in inserting ὁ “Incods, of
μαθηταί, of ὄχλοι, of ἀρχιερεῖς, in passages where these subjects
can all be inferred from the context.

Yet another example of what I may call an “irrelevant agree-
ment ᾿᾿ of Matthew and Luke against Mark arises from the use
of the word (50d. Mark, for some reason or other, never uses
this word in narrative; Matthew uses it 33 times, Luke 16.
No explanation, then, is required for the fact that 5 times they
concur in introducing it in the same context—for obviously the
number of contexts is limited where its use would be at all
appropriate.

DECEPTIVE AGREEMENTS

The above constitute considerably more than half the total
number of the Minor Agreements we are discussing, and it goes
without saying that they have no significance whatever. But
there remain quite a number of cases where the coincidence of
Matthew and Luke does at first sight appear significant, but where
further scrutiny shows this to be a mistake. Thus frequently,
when Mark uses a word which is linguistically inadmissible,
the right word is so obvious that, if half-a-dozen independent
correctors were at work, they would all be likely to light upon it.

cx. x1 MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 299

For example, Mark 4 times uses the verb φέρειν of animals or
persons, and every time Matthew and Luke concur in altering
this to ἄγειν or some compound of ἄγειν. φέρειν, like its English
equivalent “ carry,” is properly used of inanimate objects which
one has to lift; when speaking of a person or an animal that
walks on its own legs the natural word to use is ἄγειν, the equi-
valent of the English verb “to lead.” Equally inevitable are
corrections like κλίνη, θυγάτηρ, and ἑκατοντάρχης for the appar-
ent vulgarisms κράββατον, θυγάτριον, and κεντυρίων ; or the
substitution of τετράρχης, the correct title of the petty princelet
Herod, for βασιλεύς, which in educated circles was only used
of historical characters or of the reigning emperor. Hardly less
inevitable is the explanatory substitution by Matthew and Luke
of ‘‘ Son of God ” for “Son of the Blessed” in the high priest’s
question to our Lord (Mk. xiv. 61).

Even more necessary is the alteration twice made of μετὰ τρεῖς
ἡμέρας to τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ in speaking of the Resurrection, since
in strict Greek the former phrase might seem to imply an extra
day. Lastly, seeing that the first four disciples were constituted
of two pairs of brothers, it is far more natural to mention Andrew
next to Simon, as do Matthew and Luke, than to name the sons of
Zebedee, as Mark does, in between those two. But granted that
this obvious improvement in the order occurred to Matthew and
Luke independently, then the addition by both of the words
“his brother ᾿᾿ is almost inevitable.

I proceed to consider some further Agreements of a more
striking character, which nevertheless I believe are really
deceptive.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
ii. 12. ἐπι ῆς v. 25.
ἐξῆλθεν ἔμπροσθεν πάν- ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον
Των. ανυτοῦυ, aurov,

A coincidence like this in five consecutive words seems at first
sight to belong to a different category from the single word agree-
ments so far discussed. But it is instructive as illustrating the

900 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

fallacy of merely counting words or considering extracts without
a study of the context. The only real coincidence between
Matthew and Luke is that both of them are at pains to bring out
more clearly than Mark that the man did exactly what our Lord
commanded him. In Mark this command runs, “ Arise, take up
thy bed and go to thy house.” Matthew proceeds, “‘ And having
arisen, he went away to his house.” Luke even more precisely :
“ Having stood up before them, and having taken up what he
lay on, he went away to his house.” εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ is simply
the echo of Mark’s εἰς τὸν οἶκον σοῦ. The change from Mark’s
ἐξῆλθεν to ἀπῆλθεν is even more inevitable. Mark describes the
scene from the spectator’s point of view, the man went out, and
that was the last they saw of him, ἐξῆλθεν. But if, with Matthew
and Luke, you wish to say in Greek that a person left one place
for another with the emphasis on the destination, ἀπῆλθεν is the
appropriate word. Very similar is the way they deal with the
concluding words of Mark’s Gospel.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xvi. 8 XXxviii. 8. xxiv. 9.
οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφο- μετὰ φόβου καὶ χαρᾶς ἀπήγγειλαν πάντα
βοῦντο γάρ. ἔδραμον ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς ταῦτα τοῖς ἕνδεκα καὶ
μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ. πᾶσιν τοῖς λοιποῖς.

If, as I believe, the text of Mark known to Matthew and Luke
ended at this point, as it does in x Β Syr. S., they would be
obliged to guess at the further proceedings of the women. The
women had just been expressly commanded by an angel to
give an important message to the disciples; it would never have
occurred to Matthew or Luke that the women could have failed
to carry out the instructions. Mark’s words “ they told no man ”
would certainly have been interpreted to mean “ they did not
spread the news abroad,”’ not “ they did not deliver the message
of the angel.’ But if Matthew and Luke took it for granted that
the lost ending of Mark told how the women carried out their
orders, it was natural, by way of concluding their account of
the incident, to say as briefly as possible that they gave the

ση.χ MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 301

message. But the words in which they do this coincide only
in the verb ἀπαγγέλλειν---ἢθ natural word for any one to use.

Another still more illusory Agreement is the insertion
(Mt. xxvi. 50, Lk. xxii. 48) of a word of Christ to Judas on receipt
of the kiss of treachery. In Matthew He says, “Friend, do that
for which thou art come”; in Luke, “ Judas, betrayest thou
the Son of Man with a kiss?” Surely the insertion at a moment
like this of words of a tenor so totally different is a disagreement
striking enough to outweigh many small agreements.

Among the twenty Agreements picked out by Sir J. Hawkins?
as most remarkable is the verb αὐλίζεσθαι (to lodge) (Mt. xxi. 17,
Lk. xxi. 37). The word is found nowhere else in the Gospels ;
but this also seems to me to constitute a Deceptive Agreement
for two reasons. (a) The word occurs in passages inserted by
Matthew and Luke into the Marcan outline, but the inser-
tions are made in quite different contexts—Matthew’s after
the Cleansing of the Temple (=Mk. xi. 15-19), Luke’s after
the Apocalyptic discourse which corresponds to Mk. xiii.
(b) Matthew says our Lord lodged at Bethany, Luke that he
lodged on the Mount of Olives. The disagreement in sub-
stance is so much more obvious than the concurrence in a
single by no means out-of-the-way word that it clearly points
to independent editing.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.

iii. 1. xii. 9-10. vi. 6.
εἰσῆλθεν πάλιν els συν- ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ἑτέρῳ
αγωγήν, καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἄν. αὐτῶν. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος σαββάτῳ εἰσελθεῖν αὐτὸν
θρωπος ἐξηραμμένην ἔχων χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν. εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν καὶ ἦν
τὴν χεῖρα. ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖ καὶ ἡ χεὶρ

αὐτοῦ ἡ δεξιὰ Fv ξηρά.
I should hardly have thought this instance worth quoting but
for the fact that it is included by Prof. Burton? as one of the
15 Minor Agreements which appreciably affect the sense.
The text is not beyond dispute. All Greek MSS. except Bx
and one cursive insert τὴν in Mark as well; also ξηράν is read
1 Hor. Syn.* p. 210 ff. 2 Op cit. p. 17.

302 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. II

in place of ἐξηραμμένην in Mark by DW. But as the readings
of the other MSS. are of the nature of assimilations, the text
of B Ν is to be preferred. On the assumption, however, that
the B text is correct the insertion of τὴν by both Matthew and
Luke requires no special explanation. The natural—though
possibly not the correct—interpretation of πάλιν in Mark is
that He returned to a place previously mentioned, in which
case the article is grammatically indispensable. The difference
between ἕηράν and ἐξηραμμένην corresponds to the difference
in English between the words “dry” and “dried”; and the
question, which would be the more natural word to use in this
particular context is one that depends on those subtleties of
linguistic usage which only contemporaries can appreciate.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
iy. 10. xiii. 10. viii. 9.
ol περὶ αὐτὸν σὺν τοῖς οἱ μαθηταὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ

δώδεκα

Mark’s phrase is quite strikingly cumbrous, and “ disciples ”’ is
the obvious simplification.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
iv. 36. viii. 23. viii. 22.
ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον παρα- ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ εἰς πλοῖον, αὐτὸς ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον
λαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς ἣν ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ μα καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ. θηταὶ αὐτοῦ.

The prima face implication of the language of Mark would be
that the disciples took charge of the situation, so to speak, and
almost hustled our Lord into the boat. I do not suppose Mark
intended to convey that impression; but Matthew and Luke
obviously go out of their way to emphasise the contrary. In-
tentional correction to avoid possible misapprehension is plain,
but they correct in such different ways that they are clearly
acting independently. The example is important as illustrating
the futility of counting verbal coincidences without scrutinising
the actual words. of μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ is the inevitable subject, and
ἐμβαίνω is as obvious as “ go on board” would be in English.

ox.xt MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 303

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xiii. 19. xxiv. 21. xxi. 23.
ἔσονται yap al ἡμέραι ἔσται yap τότε θλῖψις. ἔσται γὰρ ἀνάγκη.

ἐκεῖναι θλίψις.

This is another of Professor Burton’s 15 instances. But Mark’s
phrase is stylistically intolerable in Greek. Note, however, that
though they agree in changing the verb to the singular, Matthew
and Luke differ in the substantive which they make its subject,
7.e.in the actual alteration made, they differ more conspicuously

than they agree.
Mark. Matthew. Luke.
viii. 29. xvi. 16. ix. 20.
ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς
λέγει αὐτῷ, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ ὁ εἶπεν, Τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ
Χριστός. Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ θεοῦ. ee
τοῦ ζῶντος.
xy. 30-32. xxvii. 40. xxiii. 35-37.
σῶσον σεαυτὸν καταβὰς σῶσον σεαυτόν" εἰ υἱὸς σωσάτω ἑαυτόν, εἰ οὗτός
ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ... εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, κατάβηθι ἀπὸ ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ
ὁ Χριστὸὲξ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ. ὁ ἐκλεκτός" . . . εἰ σὺ εἶ
Ἰσραήλ. ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων

i
σῶσον σεαυτόν.

Note that in two different contexts Matthew and Luke each
alter Mark’s simple title “‘ the Christ.” In both cases Matthew
alters to ‘‘ the Son of God,” Luke to “the Christ of God,” 1.6.
each prefers a dzfferent title. This example is most instructive ;
for, if either of these parallels had stood alone, we might have
supposed the addition of τοῦ θεοῦ to be the result of a coin-
cident agreement of Matthew and Luke in an alteration of Mark.
Whereas, having both sets of parallels, we see that, while
Matthew and Luke agree in altering Mark, each alters in a way
characteristic of himself. That is to say, the passages are, so
far as they go, evidence of independent alteration.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xiv. 47. xxvi. 51. xxii. 49-50.
els δέ [rts] τῶν παρεστη- καὶ ἰδοὺ els . . . am- ... el πατάξομεν ἐν
κότων σπασάμενος THY μάΑ- ἔσπασεν τὴν μάχαιραν μαχαίρῃ; καὶ ἐπάταξεν
χαιραν ἔπαισεν. αὐτοῦ, καὶ πατάξας. εἷς τις ἐξ αὐτῶν...

There is a tendency in Greek authors to use παίω of striking

804 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

with the hand or stick, πατάσσω of striking with a cutting instru-
ment. The usage is not at all rigid, but is sufficiently pronounced
to make it likely that both Matthew and Luke would independ-
ently make these substitutions.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
‘xv. 43. xxvii, 57. xxiii. 50,
ἐλθὼν ᾿Ιωσὴφ ἀπὸ 'A., ἦλθεν ἄνθρωπος πλού- ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι "Iwan,
εὐσχήμων βουλευτής σιος ἀπὸ ᾿Α., τοὔνομα βουλευτὴς ὑπάρχων
Iwotd...

From a literary point of view Mark’s construction could only be
justified if Joseph had been previously mentioned. A new
character requires a phrase like “by name” or “named” to
introduce him. N.B. also Matthew and Luke use different
phrases for the purpose.

If all the agreements so far discussed occurred in the course
of two or three chapters, the suggestion that they are ‘“‘ deceptive,”
1.6. that they are explicable as the result of independent editing,
would be precarious. But they are spread over the whole of a
lengthy document. Moreover, we must remember that every
verse of Mark incorporated by Matthew and Luke has been so
drastically rewritten that upwards of 45°% of the words he
uses have been changed by each of them. That is to say, the
alterations are many times as numerous as any modern editor
would make in a translated article which he wished to turn into
idiomatic English. Thus, although the number of coincident
alterations may seem large, the proportion of them to the total
number of alterations is extraordinarily small. On a rough
estimate the number of words in Mark is about 12,000—I do
not profess to have counted—the words altered by each will
be over 5000, while the coincidences so far discussed would not
amount to 100. Hence the coincident alterations would be less
than 2 °% of the whole number of alterations. And considering
the natural and obvious character of every one of these, this does
not seem a large proportion.

If, however, any one thinks the proportion too large to be

cx. x1 MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 305

accidental, it is open to him to accept Dr. Sanday’s hypothesis
that the text of Mark used by Matthew and Luke had undergone
a slight stylistic revision. But, I would submit, it is not open
to him to account for the phenomena reviewed above by the
hypothesis of an “ Ur-Marcus,” that is, a more primitive edition
of Mark. For in every case the coincident language used by
Matthew and Luke has been shown to be more polished and in
every way less primitive than the existing text of Mark. IH,
therefore, the coincident agreements of Matthew and Luke can
only be explained on the theory that they used a different edition
of Mark to the one we have, then it is the earlier of the two
editions, the Ur-Marcus in fact, that has survived.

INFLUENCE OF Q

In the ‘‘ Complete Table ” of Agreements, very conveniently
printed in parallel columns in the Appendix of E. A. Abbott’s
Corrections of Mark, the eye lights at once on a number of passages
which cannot reasonably be explained on the hypothesis of
coincident alteration by independent editors. But, of these,
most of the more striking disappear if we reflect that, when
Abbott wrote, the overlapping of Q and Mark had not yet been
clearly grasped by students of the Synoptic Problem.

It is now realised that Q, as well as Mark, contained ver-
sions of John’s Preaching, the Baptism, Temptation, Beelzebub
Controversy, Mission Charge, parable of Mustard Seed, and that
Matthew regularly, Luke occasionally, conflates Mark and Q.
Hence agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in these
contexts can be explained by the influence of Q. This covers
phrases like περίχωρος τοῦ “lopddvov (Mt. iii. 5=Lk. ui. 3),
ἀνεῴχθησαν (-ηναι) (Mt. iii. 16=Lk. iti. 21), ἀνήχθη (ἤγετο)
(Mt. iv. 1 =Lk. iv. 1), which occur in introductions to Q sayings,
since the Q sayings must have had some word or two of
introduction.

1 The Corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew and Luke (A. & C. Black),
1901.
x

806 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 0

Some scholars, however, have laid far too much stress on the
bearing of the overlapping of Mark and Q on the problem of
the minor agreements. We have no right to call in the hypothesis
of the influence of Q for this ulterior purpose except in places
where the existence of obviously different versions, or of doublets
very distinctly defined, provides us with objective evidence of the
presence of Q. Apart from the list of passages just enumerated,
there are only three in Abbott’s list where it seems to me that an
agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark ought to be ex-
plained by conflation from Q. In Mk. iv. 21 =Mt. v. 15 =Lk. viii.
16=Lk. xi. 33; Mk. iv. 22=Mt. x. 26=Lk. viii. 17 =Lk. xii. 2.
In both of these the doublet in Luke is evidence that the saying
stood in Q. Again, in Mt. xvi. 4 the addition of the word πονηρά
and the mention of the Sign of Jonah—which are absent from the
parallel in Mk. viii. 12—are due to the influence of the long Q
passage Mt. xii. 39 ff.=Lk. xi. 29 ff. Abbott here prints Lk.
xi. 29 side by side with Mk. viii. 12, but it comes from an entirely
different context. I mention this fact in order to emphasise
the point that looking at selected lists of parallels may be mis-
leading unless one also turns up the context in a good Synopsis
of the Gospels.

TEXTUAL CORRUPTION

I proceed to explore the hypothesis that a large number of the
Agreements are due, not to the original authors, but to later
scribes, being, in fact, examples of the phenomena of acci-
dental omission, or of assimilation between the texts of parallel
passages, which we have seen to be the main source of textual
corruption.

Our examination, however, of passages in detail will be far
more illuminating if we give due weight to three preliminary
considerations.

(1) The Gospel of Mark could not compete in popularity with
the fuller and richer Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and although
I cannot agree with Burkitt’s theory (cf. p. 339) that it went

ση. χα MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 307

completely out of use for some time in the second century, it is
probable that it was very much less frequently copied than the
other Gospels. Ata later date, when the practice of having each
Gospel on a separate roll was discontinued, and the Codex con-
taining all Four Gospels came into fashion, Mark, though much
less read, was necessarily copied as often as the others.

Now, most ancient MSS. teem with accidental omissions of
single words, of lines, and occasionally of paragraphs. There are
MSS. of Homer where as many as 60 lines at a time are omitted.
Where many copies of a work were in circulation, omissions would
be soon repaired; but where there were only a few copies,
omissions which did not attract attention, either from spoiling
the sense or leaving out some familiar saying or incident, would
easily escape notice. It is, therefore, antecedently probable
that some lines or words which stood in the copies of Mark known
to Matthew and Luke have dropped out οἱ the text of all our
oldest MSS. It may, then, not infrequently be the case that a
verbal agreement of Matthew and Luke preserves a word or a line
which once stood in Mark. I do not think this has happened
very often, but it would be rather surprising if it had never
happened at all.

(2) Assimilation of parallel passages in the Gospels is the
commonest form of textual corruption. Accordingly, a reading
which makes the wording of parallels differ is in general to be
preferred to one that makes them agree, even if the MS. evidence
is comparatively slight. But this principle is sometimes pushed
too far. In any average Synoptic parallel, perhaps 35 % of the
words used by Matthew and Luke are identical, being taken
over from Mark. It follows that an accidental corruption of
the text of Mark which affected an alteration in any of the words
which both of them had happened to take over would leave an
agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark. But the number
of variants in the text of Mark in existing MSS. is very large, so
that the chance that some of the readings found in the printed
texts are the result of textual corruption is quite high.

908 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. Π

(3) The classification of the MSS. along the line of local texts
attempted in Chaps. III. and ΤΥ. is of such fundamental importance
for our present investigation that, at the risk of repetition, I
venture to recall certain considerations there laid down.

(a) If the Byzantine text goes back in essentials to the revision
of Lucian about A.D. 300, the evidence of all MSS. which present
this text (and of all mixed MSS., in so far as they present it) may be
treated as a single witness, and that not one of the most important.
Hence, in citing MS. evidence for a particular reading it will
considerably clarify the issue to use for all these authorities the
single symbol Byz. (b) Again, the whole importance of the identi-
fication of local texts lies in the fact that these represent relatively
independent lines of transmission of the text. Hence, instead of
quoting MSS. in alphabetical order, as in the ordinary Apparatus
Criticus, I shall cite them, so far as possible, by their grouping.
(c) If the MS. evidence for a reading belongs to the oldest recover-
able form of a local text, nothing is gained by citing subordinate
authorities. Thus where Bw agree in a particular reading,
the evidence for it is not much increased by the fact that C L 33
may be cited in support. The important question to ask is, Is the
reading supported by Bx, by D, by αὖ, by ke, or by fam. Θ or
by Syr. S., since these represent independent traditions ? Hence
the common practice of citing all the MS. evidence is actually
misleading. I propose, therefore, only to quote the evidence of
subordinate MSS. where the evidence of the leading authorities
is divided or obscure. (d) What carries most weight—apart from
considerations of the intrinsic probability of a given reading—is
not the number of MSS. which support it, but the number of local
texts which the MSS. supporting it represent, or the age to
which by patristic quotations it can be pushed back. A reading,
for instance, supported by k, Syr. S. and 69, or one supported
by only one of these MSS. and a quotation of Marcion or Justin,
deserves most serious consideration, even if every other MS. is
against it.

MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK

OH. XI

309

Tur MS. Evipencre

The passages which follow include all the minor agreements
not already discussed in this chapter which seem to me at all
significant. They include those mentioned by Hawkins and by
Burton; also all those in Abbott’s exhaustive list which are in
the slightest degree remarkable, along with certain others I have

myself noticed.

Mark.

i, 40-42,
kal ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν
λεπρὸς... λέγων αὐτῷ

ὅτι Kay θέλῃς δύνασαί με
καθαρίσαι, καὶ σπλαγχρι-
σθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα

Matthew.

viii. 2-3.
καὶ ἰδοὺ λεπρὸς mpoo-
ελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ
λέγων ἸΚύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς
δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. καὶ
ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα [αὐτοῦ]

Luke.
v. 12-13,
καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ πλήρης
λέπρας... . ἐδεήθη αὐτοῦ
λέγων Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς,
δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. καὶ
ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἥψατο

ἥξει
αὐτοῦ
εὐθέως

αὐτοῦ ἥψατο [αὐτοῦ] καὶ
λέγει. . . καὶ εὐθὺς

ἥψατο αὐτοῦ λέγων...
καὶ εὐθέως

εἰπιῦν, . . . καὶ

(a) ἰδού is never used by Mark in narration, but is found 33
times in Matthew and 16 in Luke; it is not, therefore, surprising
that they concur occasionally in a stylistic alteration of Mark
which they are always making independently.

(6) Κύριε. But the word occurs in Mark also in B C L 579 Sah.,
Weeff?,® 700. It is omitted by x D b, Syr. 8. Boh. Byz. Hort
for once deserts B, thinking B here assimilates (κύριε only once in
Mk.). Butthe combination of the three distinct traditions, Egyptian
B CL Sah., “ African”? W ce, and Caesarean © 700, is a very
strong one. Hither, then, B is right and there is no agreement
of Matthew and Luke against Mark; or we have, not only a
clear case of B L convicted of assimilation, but evidence of such
an orgy of assimilation in these small details that no text can
be relied on, and it is just as likely that the presence of Kvpve in
either Matthew or Luke may be due to the same cause.

(c) The order of Matthew and Luke is ἥψατο αὐτοῦ against
Mark’s αὐτοῦ ἥψατο; but in © 565 Mark also has ἥψατο αὐτοῦ.
But D ea ff? have αὐτοῦ ἥψατο αὐτοῦ in Mark, and in Matthew
s 124 (Ὁ hiat.) Syr. Sah. Boh. attest the double αὐτοῦ, a reading

910 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 0

hard to explain unless this was the original reading in Mark and
was adopted by Matthew from him. If we accept the reading
of D as original all is explained. Mark’s Aramaic idiom is full
of pronouns unidiomatic in Greek ; the MS. tradition represented
by © 565 drops the first αὐτοῦ ; that represented by B, which
is here followed by Byz., drops the second instead. Luke
preferred the former course, which is really the more obvious,
since it is the first αὐτοῦ that is redundant with χεῖρα, and, only
if the second is dropped, can it be construed as object of
ἥψατο.

(4) ἥψατο λέγων (or εἰπών) for ἥψατο καὶ λέγει. Mark’s
historic present, unidiomatic in this use, is regularly altered by
both Matthew and Luke, and in this instance the only natural
thing was to put a participle ; but though an identical construc-
tion was practically forced on them, they differ in the choice of
the verb meaning “ to say.”

(6) εὐθέως against εὐθύς. The fact is that εὐθέως is the form
preferred in all the Gospels in the majority of MSS. and is found
here in Mark also in all MSS. except in 8 BL 33 and Θ, 164.
But throughout Mark, B (usually supported by δὶ L and some-
times by ΟἹ prefers εὐθύς ; the same MSS. often read εὐθύς in
other Gospels against εὐθέως in the other MSS. It looks as if
Mark preferred the form εὐθύς, while the other evangelists (and
scribes as a rule, except in Alexandria) preferred εὐθέως. But
if by both authors and scribes εὐθέως was the form preferred, an
agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark is inevitable
wherever the word is used by all three.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
ii. 21-22. ix. 16-17. v. 36-37.
érlBrnua... ἐπιρράπτει ἐπιβάλλει ἐπίβλημα... ἐπίβλημα ἐπιβάλλει...
εν εἰ δὲ μή εἰ δὲ μήγε εἰ δὲ μήγε

But (a) B 801 read μὴ in Matthew. Was Hort right in
deserting B? (b) The noun ἐπίβλημα almost shouts out to
an editor to alter the verb to ἐπιβάλλει.

on. xt MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 311
Mark. Matthew. Luke.
ii, 22. ibe 17: Vuots

kal ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται
καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί. [ἀλλὰ οἶνον
νέον els ἀσχοὺς καινούς. |

ὁ οἶνος [ἐκχεῖται] καὶ οἱ
ἀσκοὶ ἀπόλλυνται ἀλλὰ
βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς

καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται

καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται"
ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς

ἀσκοὺς καινούς. καινοὺς βλητέον.

In Matthew Dak omit ἐκχεῖται (and
“ Western non-interpolation.”

Curiously enough, however, while the acceptance of this as an
interpolation gets rid of this, the first of the twenty agreements
picked out by Hawkins as being specially conspicuous, accept-
ance of the Western reading produces an agreement later in the
same verse, for D Old Lat. omit ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς
καινούς. Synopses based on Hort’s text ignore this omission ;
Huck accepts it. But both ignore the former instance. The
line divisions in D (which Rendel Harris! has shown to be much
older than the actual MS.) are such that, if the omitted line had
stood in D, the words οἶνος ἀσκός, separated by only a few letters,
would have occurred in each of three successive lines. This is a
formation which invites accidental omission: the scribe copies the
second line, and then glancing back to the model mistakes the
third line for the one he has written and goes on with the line
that follows. I hold, therefore, that x B Byz. are right in retain-
ing the bracketed words in Mark, but that ἐκχεῖται in Matthew
is due to assimilation from Luke.

otherwise alter), a

Mark. Matthew. Luke.

li, 23. Xi. 1. Win ds
ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλ- ἤρξαντο τίλλειν... καὶ ἔτιλλον... καὶ ἤσθιον
λοντες ἐσθίειν rim

Scribes could make no satisfactory sense of ὁδὸν ποιεῖν, as the
following variants show.

ὁδὸν ποιεῖν καὶ Ο L Byz.
ὁδοποιεῖν ΒΟΉ.

ὁδοιποροῦντες 18 etc. ag f Arm. Goth.
Omit D W ce, ὃ ff?, Syr. 8.

1 Texts and Studies, II. i. p. 241 ff. (Cambridge, 1891).

312 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 1

If the phrase were an easy one, we should accept the combina-
tion D Afr. and Eur. Lat. Syr. 8. as final for an omission. But
the meaning of zrovetv—in place of ποιεῖσθαι---ἰπ literary Greek
is “make a road through the corn”’! (a proceeding which, even if
morally justifiable, is a curious way of satisfying hunger) ; hence
the omission of the difficult words is probably intentional.

Now Matthew and Luke must have felt the same difficulty
as later scribes, and would, therefore, be compelled to rewrite
the sentence. But anyone who began to rewrite a sentence
about rubbing ears of corn for a meal would find the verb “ to

“99

eat” come into his mind.
Mark, Matthew. Luke.
ii. 24. xii, 2 : vi. 2.
ἔξεστιν ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἔξεστιν [ποιεῖν]

In Luke ποιεῖν occurs in the Synopses of Huck and Rushbrooke,
but it is omitted by Westcott and Hort, with B R, D Old Lat.,
69, 700, Arm. (hiat. Syr. S.).

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
li. 26. xii. 4, vi. 4.
el μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν [μόνοις] εἰ μὴ μόνους τοὺς ἱερεῖς

It is worth noting that in Mark μόνοις ἱερεῦσι is read by
33 (579) Sah. Boh., or ἱερεῦσι μόνοις by D, most Old Lat.,
13 &c., Arm. The variation in position suggests interpolation ;
but the reading is instructive as illustrating the possibility of
assimilating along three independent lines of MS. tradition—
Egyptian, Western, and Eastern.

μόνοις in Matthew is omitted by 1 &c., and a, while L A and
k read μόνον. Variants of this sort are most easily accounted
for if the word was absent from an ancestor of the MS. in which
they occur, and have been supplied later by conjecture from
recollection of the parallel gospel; so that L A k really support
the omission.

1 But F. Field quotes a parallel from LXX (Judg. xvii. 8) for the use of
τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ -- “88 he journeyed,” Notes on the Translation of the
New Testament, p. 25 (Cambridge, 1899).

cx. xt ΜΑΤΤΗΒῪ AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 315
Mark. Matthew. Luke.
iv. 11. xiii. 11. viii. 10.

καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Ὑμῖν
τὸ μυστήριον δέδοται τῆς
βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ.

ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν ὅτι
Ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ

ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Ὑμῖν δέδοται

μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας

γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς
βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ.

τῶν οὐρανῶν.

The phrase “ the mystery is given to you” is obscure ; the verb
γνῶναι (to understand) is the most natural one for two independent
interpreters to supply. But note the singular μυστήριον is read

in Matthew by kc, a ff?, Syr. S. and C., Clem. Iren.

Mark.
v. 27.
ἐλθοῦσα ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ
-. +» ἥψατο τοῦ ἱματίου
αὐτοῦ.

Matthew.
ix. 20.

προσελθοῦσα... Hato
τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου
αὐτοῦ.

Luke.

viii. 44.
προσελθοῦσα... ἥψατο
[τοῦ κρασπέδου]τοῦ ἱματίου
αυτου.

τοῦ κρασπέδου in Luke, om. D a ff? rl, a “ Western non-inter-

polation.”

Mark.
vi. 32-34.

καὶ ἀπῆλθον ἐν τῷ
πλοίῳ εἰς ἔρημον τόπον
kar’ ἰδίαν. καὶ εἶδον
αὐτοὺς ὑπάγοντας καὶ
ἔγνωσαν πολλοί, καὶ πεΐῇ
ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν πόλεων
συνέδραμον ἐκεῖ καὶ προ-

ἦλθον αὐτούς. . . εἶδεν
πολὺν ὄχλον καὶ Ῥέσπλαγ-
χνίσθη ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς... καὶ

ἤρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς
πολλά.

Matthew.
xiv. 13, 14.

ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ ᾽Ι. ἀνεχώ-
pnoev ἐκεῖθεν ἐν πλοίῳ εἰς
ἔρημον τόπον κατ᾽ ἰδίαν"
καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ ὄχλοι
ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῴ πεζοὶ
ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων... καὶ
ἐθεράπευσεν τοὺς ἀρρώ-

στοὺς αὐτῶν.

Luke.
ix. 10, 11.
καὶ παραλαβὼν αὐτοὺς
ὑπεχώρησεν κατ᾽ ἰδίαν εἰς
πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθ-
σαϊδά. οἱ δὲ ὄχλοι γνόντες

ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ, . ..

καὶ τοὺς χρείαν ἔχοντας
θεραπείας ἰᾶτο.

The Feeding of the Five Thousand is a section in which there

are more minor agreements than in any other of the same length.
They include, besides the parallels printed above, those to Mk.
vi. 43 and the words βρώματα (Mt. xiv. 15, Lk. ix. 13) and
ὡσεί (Mt. xiv. 21, Lk. ix. 14) discussed below. Hence it is of
particular importance to notice that the majority of them are
distinctly of the nature of stylistic improvements on Mark, and
therefore point away from an Ur-Marcus hypothesis.

314 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

The T.R. with 13 &c., and some late MSS., adds ὄχλοι in
Mk. vi. 33. This, however, is probably due to assimilation ; but
since the subject of εἶδον (Mk. vi. 33) is different from that of the
previous verb ἀπῆλθον, grammar and sense in Greek, as in English,
demand that the subject of εἶδον be expressed. As the unex-
pressed subject is the people, described in the next sentence of
Mark as πολὺν ὄχλον, Matthew and Luke naturally supply οἱ
ὄχλοι. Again, the word ἀκολουθέω in Greek, like “follow”
in English, is the only natural one to employ, if Matthew and
Luke both wished to cut short Mark’s more elaborate, but
obviously more primitive, “ ran together there and arrived before
them.” It may be added that the phrase ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ὄχλος
πολύς occurs in Mk. v. 24, where curiously enough it is not
reproduced exactly by either Matthew or Luke; the trick of
memory which leads Matthew or Luke to introduce a collocation
of words from one context in Mark into quite another in their
own Gospels is very frequent. Hawkins! collects the instances
under the heading “ Transference of Formulae.”

A more striking coincidence between Matthew and Luke is
their addition of the statement that our Lord healed the sick.
But the words in which they express this are as different as they
well could be. Probably, therefore, this statement is an inter-
pretative inference, made by both independently, of Mark’s phrase
ἐσπλαχνίσθη ἐπ᾽ avtovs—it being taken for granted that the
pity expressed itself in action of this kind. There are other
passages where one or other of the later evangelists adds to Mark
a generalised statement of our Lord’s healing, e.g. Mt. xv. 30,
Lk. vii. 21. The actual words ἀρρώστους ἐθεράπευον occur
Mk. vi. 13, and it is quite in Matthew’s habit to transfer such a
formula. An alternative possibility is that καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν ἀρρώ-
στους πολλούς, or something like it, originally stood in the text
of Mark after διδάσκειν αὐτούς, if kal... ἀρρώστους was
omitted through homoioteleuton with αὐτούς, the surviving
πολλούς would inevitably be altered to πολλώ to make sense.

1 Hor. Syn.* p. 168 ff.

cx. xt MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 315
Mark. Matthew. Luke.
vi. 43, xiv. 20. ix. 17.

kal ἦραν κλάσματα δώ-
δεκα κοφίνων πληρώματα.
Huck and T.R. read

κλασμάτων.

καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον
τῶν κλασμάτων δώδεκα
κοφίνους πλήρεις.

καὶ ἤρθη τὸ περισσεῦσαν
αὐτοῖς κλασμάτων κόφινοι
δώδεκα.

Mark’s use of πληρώματα is not really Greek ; and if one is to
express the idea of surplus or residue in Greek neatly it can only
be done by some derivative of the word περισσόν, and this word
is used in Mark in the parallel sentence of the account of the
Feeding of the Four Thousand, which, of course, Matthew (and,
perhaps, Luke) had read. WDe13 &c. have the noun form
περίσσευμα in Luke, while καὶ D 13 &. om. αὐτοῖς (W. αὐτῶν),
which is perhaps right.

There are two other agreements in this same section.
βρώματα =“ food,” Mt. xiv. 15, Lk. ix. 13, is such an obvious
word to use in this context that, seeing that it does not occur
in verses in other respects verbally parallel, it is of no real
significance. ὡσεί (Mt. xiv. 21, Lk. ix. 14); but this is omitted
in Matthey by W, the uncial fragment 0106, Old Lat. Syr. C.
(hiat. S.) Orig.™* ; and ὡς is substituted in A 33, D, Θ΄.

Mark.
ix. 2-3.
καὶ μετεμορφώθη ἔμ-
προσθεν αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰ
ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ στίλβοντα
λευκὰ Alay...
Huck and T.R. ἐγένετο
after αὐτοῦ.

Matthew.

xvii. 2.
καὶ μεταμορφώθη ἔμ-
προσθεν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔλαμ-
yev τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ
ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, τὰ δὲ ἱμάτια
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο λευκὰ ὡς τὸ

φῶς.

Luke.
ix, 29.
καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ προσ-
εὔχεσθαι αὐτὸν τὸ εἶδος
τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕτερον
καὶ ὁ ἱματισμὸς
λευκὸς ἐξαστράπτων.

αὐτοῦ

In a Greek Synopsis the underlined πρόσωπον strikes the eye of

an English reader ; but in real life, if we speak of a change in a
person’s appearance, the first thing we think of and mention is
the face. If, then, there is anything that requires to be explained
in this agreement—which I am inclined to doubt—it is not why
both Matthew and Luke use the word πρόσωπον, but how Mark

managed to avoid doing so. It reads a little strangely to say a

816 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr, I

person was transfigured, and then to go on to speak of the difference
in his clothes without mentioning the face. Of course, the point
in itself would be too small to be significant ; but it is never safe
to ignore the readings of fam. ©, Syr. 8. and k, when they agree
in departing from the ordinary text. 1 &c. 346, Syr. S. k
concur in omitting στίλβοντα (© 565 transpose λευκὰ and
στίλβοντα, a sign that one of these words was absent from their
ancestor) ; but Syr. S., after “‘transfigured before them,” adds
the words “‘ and he became gleaming,” which may imply a Greek
reading καὶ ἐγένετο στίλβων. Is it possible that the original
text of Mark was καὶ ἐγένετο στίλβον τὸ πρόσωπον, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια
αὐτοῦ λευκὰ λίαν Σ If πρόσωπον was accidentally omitted,
ottABovro—written of course as one word and without accents—
would be left “in the air.” Sense had to be made somehow.
The ancestor of fam. © k solved the difficulty by leaving out the
words altogether; that of Syr. 8. by changing them to στίλβων,
which could then refer to Jesus; that of B by emending to
στίλβοντα and transferring the words ἐγένετο στίλβοντα to
another place in the sentence so as to construe with ἱμάτια.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
ix, 6-7. xvii. 5. ix. 84,

(No corresponding ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος
words.) a oe Pe

Matthew and Luke have no word in common except αὐτοῦ,
which of course proves nothing, and the insertion of some such
words to mark the transition is a literary improvement. Still it
is perhaps a little odd—though by no means impossible—that two
independent writers should hit so nearly upon the same phrase
by way of addition. An obvious hypothesis would be that
ἔτι λαλοῦντος αὐτοῦ represents a line in the original text of
Mark which has dropped out.

1 & reads candida aba. The aba is erased, and is probably an incorrect
anticipation of the alba which occurs two lines later. It cannot have been
meant as a translation of στίλβοντα.

ox. x1 MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 317

Mark. Matthew Luke.
ix. 19 xvii, 17. ix. 41.

ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτοῖς ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς
λέγει, Ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος, εἶπεν, Ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος εἶπεν, Ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος
... φέρετε αὐτὸν πρός με. καὶ διεστραμμένη. . , [καὶ διεστραμμένη] προσ-

φέρετέ μοι αὐτὸν ὧδε. άγαγε ὧδε τὸν υἱόν σου.

In Luke καὶ διεστραμμένη om. 6 Marcion (as quoted by both
Tert. and Epiph.), 1.6. by African! and old Roman text. Syr. 8.
and C. (also in Mt.) transpose with ἄπιστος, perhaps for the
sake of rhythm ; but transposition always suggests an insertion.
In Luke ὧδε om. Dr; T.R. transposes.
The aorist εἶπεν is the usual substitution by Matthew and
Luke for the unidiomatic historic present in Mark.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
x. 25. xix. 24. Xviii. 25.
διὰ τρυμαλιᾶς padldos διὰ τρήματος ῥαφίδος . . » διὰ τρήματος βε-
διελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον. .. εἰσελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον... λόνης εἰσελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον
εἰσελθεῖν ah . es εἰσελθεῖν
Huck and’ T.R. read
διὰ TMS. ....... Τῇ:

(a) But DL and the majority of MSS. read τρυπήματος in
Matthew, and the reading is quoted (without specifying from which
Gospel) by Clem. Orig.°*". ButC, @ 124 565 700, etc., with Orig.™*,
read τρυμαλιᾶς in Matthew as in Mark; and there is respectable
MS. authority for both τρυμαλιᾶς and τρυπήματος in Luke. In
other words assimilation has run riot. But the reading of D
τρυμαλιᾶς Mark, τρυπήματος Matthew, τρήματος Luke, which
is supported by x B in Matthew and Luke, and by the majority
of other MSS. (but not » B) in Mark, makes all three Gospels
different. As therefore it cannot be suspected of harmonisation,
and also accounts for all the other variants, it is almost certainly
correct—in which case the agreement disappears.

(Ὁ) In Matthew B Sah.°**-, D Lat., Θ, Syr. 5. and C. Orig.™*-
read διελθεῖν. Why Hort should have deserted B, when so
well supported, I cannot imagine.

1 Tischendorf in his Apparatus overlooks the omission by e, but it is in
his edition of that MS., Evangelium Palatinum inedttum (Leipzig, 1847).

918 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
x. 30. xix. 29. xviii. 30.
ἑκατονταπλασίονα πολλαπλασίονα πολλαπλασίονα

D Old Lat. read ἑπταπλασίονα in Luke. This reading, which
makes all three Gospels differ, is surely right.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
ΧΙ ἢν XX, xix. 28, 29.
ὅτε ἐγγίζουσιν εἰς ᾽Τερο- ὅτε ἤγγισαν εἰς 'Ἴερο- ... ἀναβαίνων εἰς Ἴερο-
σόλυμα καὶ εἰς [Βηθρφαγὴ σόλυμα καὶ ἦλθον εἰς σόλυμα. . , ὡς ἤγγισεν
καὶ] Βηθανίαν Βηθφαγὴ εἰς Βηθφαγὴ καὶ Βηθανίαν

In the text of W.H. and in the T.R. (which is supported by
s B L and the mass of MSS. there is no agreement of Matthew and
Luke against Mark. But D, Old Lat. 700, omit! Bethphage in
Mark—and this ‘“‘ Western non-interpolation”’ is accepted by
Tischendorf. Thus in Huck’s Synopsis an agreement is shown.
But, if the original text of Mark omitted the name Bethphage,
where did Luke get it from? It is not mentioned elsewhere in
the Gospels. Moreover, as Burkitt points out,? the way in
which Mark mentions the three names is confusing. Both
Matthew and Luke simplify in different ways by rearranging the
sentences. The Western text does it by the easier method of
omitting Bethphage. This is the second case which has already
come under our notice of omission by D, Old Lat. to meet a
difficulty. The lesson is a valuable one. Western omissions are
not always “ non-interpolations.”

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xi. 27, xxi. 23. 3
καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ περι- καὶ ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς καὶ ἐγένετο. .. διδά-
πατοῦντος αὐτοῦ ἔρχονται τὸ ἱερὸν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ σκοντος αὐτοῦ τὸν λαὸν ἐν
. ol ἀρχιερεῖς... - [διδάσκοντι] ol ἀρχιερεῖς... τῷ ἱερῷ .. . ἐπέστησαν
ol ἀρχιερεῖς

? The readings of Origen (iii. 743, iv. 182) are especially interesting. In his
Commentary on John (tom. x.) he quotes Mk. xi. 1-12 in close accord with the
BW text including Bethphage; but in the Commentary on Matthew he expressly
contrasts the reading of Mark (Bethany only) with that of Matthew and Luke.
Our previous observation that he had by that time changed his text from BN
to that of fam. Θ, is confirmed by the absence of Βεθφαγὴ καὶ from 700.

3.1.8. Jan. 1916, p. 148.

cx. xr MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 319

In Matthew διδάσκοντι omitted by Old Latin (abce [71 φϑ hl),
Old Syr. (ὃ. and C.).

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xi. 29. xxi. 24. xx. 3.
ὁ δὲ, ,, εἶπεν... . ᾽Ἐπ- ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ... εἶπεν ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν. ..
ερωτήσω ὑμᾶς ἕνα λόγον, ... ἐρωτήσω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω κἀγὼ λόγον, καὶ
καὶ ἀποκρίθητέ μοι. λόγον ἕνα, ὃν ἐὰν εἴπητέ εἴπατέ μοι.

μοι

ἀποκριθείς is found in Mark also, in D, Old Lat., Syr. S., and Byz.
This may be the right reading ; but, other things being equal, a
text which makes the Gospels differ is to be preferred. But no
one who has glanced at the verb ἀποκρίνομαι in a concordance
to the New Testament will attach any significance to a concurrent
use of the constantly recurring phrase ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν. But it is
obvious that, having chosen this conventional opening for the
sentence, Matthew and Luke were bound to substitute another
verb of saying for the ἀποκρίθητε of Mark a few words later.

κἀγὼ occurs in Mark in x, D, Old Lat., Old Syr., Byz—a
strong combination ; but, as the word is not elsewhere used by
Mark, it is probably rightly rejected. But the sense requires the
emphasis ; perhaps the ἐπερωτήσω was Mark’s way of getting
this ; the others substitute the natural Greek expression, which
is one they frequently use elsewhere.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xii. 11, 12. xxi. 44. xx, 185
(Omits.) [kal ὁ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸν πᾶς ὁ πεσὼν οἷο.

λίθον... .] W.H. bracket.

The verse is omitted in Matthew by 38, Ὁ, Old Lat., Syr. 5. ;
Orig.™* Euseb.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xii. 12. xxi. 45. xx. 19.
(Simply 3rd pers. pl. ol ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρι- οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ
“ they ’’.) σαῖοι ἀρχιερεῖς

Marcion omitted the words in Luke, and this may represent the

320 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 1

earliest Roman text. But Mark had last named the opponents
of Jesus in xi. 27 = Mt. xxi. 23= Lk. xx. 1; stylistically speaking,
it was time to repeat the subject of the verb ; and this was more
necessary for Matthew than Luke since he had interpolated a
series of parables since the last mention of the chief priests. The
subject in Mark xi. 27 is of ἀρχιερεῖς Kal of γραμματεῖς καὶ of
πρεσβύτεροι; Luke repeats the first two; Matthew, whose
Gospel often elsewhere reflects anti-Pharisaic polemic, substitutes
Pharisees. So far, therefore, from agreeing against Mark, they
differ as far as was possible (granted each wished to name a subject
to the verb), since the high priests were so obviously the leading
characters that they could not be omitted.

Mark.
xii, 22.

ἔσχατον πάντων

Matthew.
xxii. 27.

ὕστερον δὲ πάντων

Luke.
xx. 32,

[ὕστερον] kal...

Luke ὕστερον om. Syr. 8. and C. Old Lat. α οὖ; e om. whole

verse from “ hour.”

Mark.
xii. 28.
els ir@y γραμματέων
. ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτόν,
Ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη
πάντων ;

Matthew.
xxii. 35, 36.
ἐπηρώτησεν els ἐξ αὐτῶν
[νομικὸς] πειράζων αὐτόν,
Διδάσκαλε, ποία ἐντολὴ
μεγάλη ἐν τῷ νόμῳ;

Luke.
x. 25, 26

ἰδοὺ νομικός τις ἀνέστη
ἐκπειράξζων αὐτόν, λέγων,
[Διδάσκαλε,] τί ποιήσας
ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονο-
μήσω; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς
αὐτόν, Ev τῷ νόμῳ τί γέ-
Ὑραπται;

(a) Apart from this passage the word νομικός is found in the
This fact practically compels us to accept

Gospels only in Luke.

as original its omission in Matthew by 1 &c., e, Syr. S., Arm.,
Orig.M* (6) διδάσκαλε in Luke is omitted by D and by Marcion
as quoted by Tertullian. It may further be remarked that, in
this passage, while Matthew is mainly following Mark, Luke seems
to derive the incident from another source. Hawkins! suggests
the incident might have stood in Q.

1 Oxford Studies, p. 41 ff.

ση. τ MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 321

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xiy. 62. xxvi. 64, xxii. 69-70.
ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν σὺ εἶπας᾽ πλὴν λέγω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἔσται ὁ
υἱὸν. . . καθήμενον ὑμῖν, ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι ὄψεσθε τὸν vids. . . καθήμενος. ..
υἱὸν. , , καθήμενον ὑμεῖς λέγετε, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.

This is our Lord’s reply to the question of the high priest, “Art
thou the Christ?” In the actual words used there are no verbal
agreements against Mark; but it is remarkable that Matthew
and Luke should agree in adding two points so alike in sense as
ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι-- ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν and σὺ εἶπας -- ὑμεῖς λέγετε. The latter
especially is an obscure phrase which apparently means “ it is
your statement, not mine.” What is still more remarkable is
that both these additions introduce difficulties which are not in
the text of Mark—an apparent disclaimer of the title Christ and
(in Matthew’s form) a statement which history falsified that the
high priests would immediately see our Lord’s Parousia.

(a) In Syr. S. the equivalent of ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι stands in Mark ; and
this reading cannot be dismissed forthwith as an assimilation, for
in both Matthew and Luke the Syriac reading is the equivalent of
ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν, 1.6. in Syriac assimilation has worked in the reverse
direction. If the words had accidentally dropped out of some
MSS. at a very early date, the fact that they seemed to imply a
prophecy which history had falsified would tend to prevent their
reinsertion. Nevertheless I am inclined to think the words are
independent editorial insertions by Matthew and Luke for four
reasons: (a) Precisely the same addition (ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι Mt. -- ἀπὸ
τοῦ νῦν Lk.) is made in the parallel Mk. xiv. 25=Mt. xxvi. 29
=Lk. xxii. 18. (8) The word ἄρτι is used 7 times by Matthew
(ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι 3 times), never by Mark or Luke. (vy) The phrase
ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν is used 5 times in Luke and once in Acts, never
by Mark or Matthew. (δ) Orig.™* (aii. 911) explicitly contrasts
the absence of the words from Mark with their presence in
Matthew. This shows that the words were absent from the old
Caesarean text as well as from the Alexandrian and Western

texts.

322 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΤΙ

(Ὁ) ©, 18 &c., 565, 700, 1071, Arm., Orig. read σὺ εἶπας ὅτι
ἐγώ εἰμι in Mark. Now ordinarily one would suspect this reading
as due to assimilation from Matthew. But here again the obscurity
of the expression, or the apparent hesitancy it might seem to
imply in our Lord’s acceptance of the title Christ, would favour
its omission. Moreover, the view that the words originally stood
in Mark explains the language of Matthew and Luke. Mark
wrote σὺ εἶπας ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, an answer intended to preclude
the acceptance of the title Messiah in the sense that the High
Priest might mean, which looks like a genuine utterance of our
Lord. Matthew leaves out the last three words and inserts
πλὴν KTH., 1.6. he interprets the words “ You have said it in scorn,
but very soon, I tell you, you shall see with your eyes.” Luke
preserves Mark’s sense and phrase, but he makes it plural,
perhaps influenced by his other source. Hence it is probable
that fam. © here preserves the true reading. If, however, the
ordinary text be preferred, I would suggest that the od εἶπας
of Matthew and the ὑμεῖς λέγετε of Luke are independent
adaptations of the σὺ λέγεις of Mk. xv. 2, intended to assimilate
our Lord’s reply to the High Priest to His reply to Pilate.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xiv. 70. xxvi. 73. xxii. 58.
ες ᾿Αληθῶς ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ .. « ᾿Αληθῶς [καὶ σὺ] ἐξ -. « καὶ σὺ ἐξ αὐτῶν ef
αὐτῶν εἶ

In Matthew καὶ od om. D, © 1 &c., Syr. 8. δ ὁ hl Orig.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xiv. 72. xxvi. 75. xxii. 61.
ἀνεμνήσθη. . . τὸ ῥῆμα ἐμνήσθη... τοῦ ῥήματος ὑπεμνήσθη τοῦ ῥήματος

(Huck, λόγου)

Verbs of remembering in Greek normally take the genitive ; the
case alteration is then one that would inevitably occur to two
editors independently. But λόγου, the reading of D and T.R.
in Luke (since it makes Matthew and Luke differ), is probably
correct.

cx. xt MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 323

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xiv. 72. xxvi. 75. xxii. 62.
ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιεν [ἐξελθὼν ἔξω ἔκλαυσεν ἐξελθὼν ἔξω ἔκλαυσεν
πικρῶς] πικρῶς

In Luke the verse is omitted by a ὁ e ff? 71, 1.6. by both African
and European Latin.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xv. 39. xxvii. 54. xxiii. 47.
(Nothing correspond- τὰ γινόμενα τὸ γενόμενον

ing.)

This is one of Hawkins’s twenty selected cases. I should not
myself regard this coincidence as a real one, as the “ what had
happened ” referred to by Matthew and Luke respectively are,
in the one case an event, in the other a saying, neither of which
are found in Mark. It is, however, curious that D omits the
words in Luke and substitutes φωνήσας.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xv. 43. xxvii. 58. xxiii. 52.
εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν ἸΤει- οὗτος προσελθὼν τῷ [οὗτος] προσελθὼν τῷ
λᾶτον καὶ ἠτήσατο ΠΠλάτῳ ἡτήσατο Πιλάτῳ ἠτήσατο

In Matthew προσῆλθε καὶ is read by D, Old Lat., (Syr. 8.), (Sah.).
In Luke οὗτος om. D, Sah. Since οὗτος has been already used
once by Luke in this sentence, its insertion here is awkward, so
D is probably correct. 69 reads αὐτὸς.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xv. 46. xxvii. 59-60. xxiii. 53.
. καθελὼν αὐτὸν λαβὼν τὸ σῶμα... καὶ καθελὼν ἐνετύλιξεν
ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ σινδόνι αὐτὸ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν
κατέθηκεν αὐτὸν καθαρᾷ καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸ αὐτὸν

The agreement against Mark in three consecutive words ἐνετύλιξεν
αὐτὸ σινδόνι followed by agreement in the uncompounded ἔθηκεν
against κατέθηκεν is striking. But observe the MS. evidence.
(a) Mark, ἔθηκεν καὶ BL, DW, © 1 &c. 13 &c. 565. Mark is
fond of compounds, so κατέθηκεν may be original; but if
original, the fact of scribal correction along several independent

324 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 11

lines of transmission shows that independent correction by
Matthew and Luke would be inevitable. (6) Matthew ἐν σινδόνι
BD, Latt. @, Sah., Boh., Orig. With this reading another
small agreement vanishes. αὐτὸ for αὐτὸν is a “ deceptive”
agreement. Matthew and Luke have rewritten Mark’s
sentence in different ways, but in both αὐτὸ refers back to
σῶμα. (c) There remains the striking agreement ἐνετύλιξεν
against éveiAncev. But 13 &c. read ἐνείλησεν in Matthew, as
in Mark. This is almost certainly right ; for it is very unlikely
that the text of Matthew would be assimilated to that of Mark,
the least read Gospel, whereas assimilation to Luke, as we have
seen, is not infrequent. I suspect that ἐνετυλίσσω was the more
dignified word and was the one conventionally appropriate to
this funeral operation ; as in English, when speaking of a shroud,
three writers out of four would instinctively prefer the word
“wind ” to “ wrap.”

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
Xvi. i. xxviii. 1. xxiv. l.
καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων τῇ τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων
σαββάτου ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν ὄρθρου βαθέως
det τον xxiii. δά.

καὶ ἡμέρα ἣν παρασκευῆς

καὶ σάββατον ἐπέφωσκεν

For the whole verse in Luke D substitutes ἦν δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα πρὸ

σαββάτου ; and for καὶ σαβ. ἐπέφ. c has cenae purae ante

sabbatum. The πρὸ σαββάτου of D could be accounted for as

a paraphrase of παρασκευῆς in an original text which omitted

the words καὶ caf. ἐπέφ. The reading of c might be a con-

flation of this text with another in which παρασκευῆς was

rendered cenae purae. If the omission was original, καὶ caf.
ἐπέφ. is an assimilation from Matthew.

In any case we note (a) that ἐπέφωσκε in Luke can only be
translated “begin,” not “dawn”; for he goes on to say that
they rested during the Sabbath ; while in Matthew it can only
have its natural meaning “dawn.” (Ὁ) The passage in Luke

MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 325

OH. XI

is not strictly parallel to those in Mark and Matthew printed
above.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.
xvi. 5. xxviii. 3. xxiv. 4.
νεανίσκον. . . περι- ἣν δὲ ἡ εἰδέα αὐτοῦ ws ἄνδρες δύο. .. ἐν ἐσθῆτι
βεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν ἀστραπὴ καὶ τὸ ἔνδυμα ἀστραπτούσῃ

αὐτοῦ λευκὸν ὡς χιών.

Luke has used the participle ἐξαστράπτων of garments in his
account of the Transfiguration (ix. 29), and what Matthew com-
pares to lightning is not the garments but the face; so coinci-
dence may be the explanation. But Marcion read λαμπρᾷ in
Luke, and the author of the Gospel of Peter, who was familiar
with all three Synoptics, reads βεβλημένον στολὴν Χλαμπροτάτην,
which looks like a conflation of Mark with Marcion’s (based on
the Old Roman) text of Luke. Byz. reads ἐν ἐσθήσεσιν ἀστραπ-
τούσαις, but L Syr. Hier. have λευκαῖς ; so that the B» read-
ing has not universal support.

Some ResipuaL CAszEs

I have purposely kept to the last the most remarkable of all
the minor agreements, as it illustrates in a peculiarly interesting
way the extent to which the problem we are considering belongs
to the sphere, not of documentary, but of textual criticism.

Mark.
xiv. 65.

. Kal ἤρξαντό τινες
ἐμπτύειν αὐτῷ [καὶ περι-
καλύπτειν αὐτοῦ τὸ πρό-
σωπονἹ καὶ κολαφίζειν
αὐτὸν... καὶ λέγειν αὐτῷ
Προφήτευσον.

Matthew.
xxvi. 67-68.

Τότε ἐνέπτυσαν els τὸ
πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκολά-
φισαν αὐτόν, οἱ δὲ ἐράπισαν
λέγοντες, Προφήτευσον
ἡμῖν, χριστέ, τίς ἐστιν ὁ
παίσας σε;

Luke.
xxii. 64,

kal περικαλύψαντες av-
τὸν ἐπηρώτων λέγοντες,
Προφήτευσον, τίς ἐστιν ὁ

παίσας σε;

The words χριστέ, τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας ce ; occur in Mark also

in some MSS. ; but, if one merely looks up the authorities in
Tischendorf, the list is not imposing. But it takes on quite a
different complexion when one discovers that the addition is found

326 THE FOUR GOSPELS pT. 1

also in W, 0,13 &c.,579,700. It then becomes apparent that the
addition in Mark is influentially supported in each of three main
streams of textual tradition: by the later Egyptian A, X, 33, 579,
Sah.°, Boh.; by the African W (hiat. 6) and Augustine (expressly
in a discussion of “ The Agreements of the Evangelists’); the
Caesarean 13 &c., Θ 565, 700, N, U, also by Arm., Syr. H. In
the face of this evidence only two conclusions are open to us.
Either the reading is correct and the words have accidentally
dropped out of the text of Mark both in καὶ Β L and in D &, or the
passage is one which has specially invited assimilation, and this to
such an extent that it has taken place independently along three
different lines of transmission. The second alternative I believe
to be correct. But the MS. evidence suggests that at any rate
a certain measure of assimilation has infected the x B L text also
in this particular context. For the words describing the veiling,
which I have bracketed in Mark, are omitted by Daf, with the
substitution of τῷ προσώπῳ for αὐτῷ. Further, @, 565, Arm.
have this substitution in addition to the ordinary reading—a con-
flation of two types of text which shows clearly that originally
they agreed with D af and the addition is due to a reviser. Syr.
S. agrees with D in the omissions, but makes the guards slap
“his cheeks ” instead of “him.” This looks as if in the text
from which the Syriac was translated the words τῷ προσώπῳ had
been slightly displaced—a hypothesis confirmed by the reading
“slapped his face” in some MSS. of the Sahidic. Further, it is to
be noticed that the omitted clause does not occur in Matthew ;
but he would have been unlikely to omit such a striking point, if
it had occurred in his source, more especially as the whole point
of the taunt “ Prophesy who it is that struck thee ” depends upon
the fact that He was prevented by the veil from seeing who did it.
Indeed this last consideration leads up to what I believe is the
true solution—that the original text of Matthew and of Mark
omitted both the veiling and the words “ Who is it, etc.” These
two stand or fall together. In Luke they are both original ; and
from Luke the first has got into the Alexandrian (but not into the

ὁη. τ MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 327

earliest Antiochene and Western) text of Mark; the second has
got into all the texts of Matthew.

The view that τίς ἐστιν κτλ. is an interpolation into Matthew
from Luke was originally suggested to me by Prof. C. H. Turner,
and at first I demurred to the view. But a consideration of the
evidence that in Mark assimilation has been at work both in Bx
and fam. Θ᾿ has removed my previous hesitation to believe that these
MSS. have suffered interpolation in Matthew also. Further, the
view argued in Chapter VIII., that Luke had an account of the
Passion which was quite independent of, and in certain ways very
different from, that of Mark, affects our judgement on this issue.
Luke inserts the incident of the Mocking before the Trial by the
high priest, instead of after the Trial, as in Mark and Matthew.
This alteration of order in itself suggests he was following a
different source. If, then, we accept the shorter text in. Mark
and reject tis ἐστιν κτὰ. in Matthew, we shall find that
Matthew as usual is substantially reproducing Mark, but that
Luke has an entirely different representation. In Mark the
mockers spit on His face and slap Him and cry, “Play the prophet
now!” In Luke they veil His eyes and then, striking Him, say,
“Use your prophetic gift of second sight to tell the striker’s
name.” Each version paints a consistent picture; but, if one
half of Luke’s picture is pieced on to Mark and the other half to
Matthew (as in the » B text), both are blurred, with the result that
in the accepted text Matthew’s version dulls the edge of the taunt
in Mark, but does not succeed in substituting the quite differently
pointed taunt in Luke.

Assimilation of parallels is a form of corruption which can
result, and, as I have shown, has often actually resulted, in pro-
ducing an identical corruption along more than one independent
line of transmission. I suggest that for once this has happened
along alllines. I should say, rather, all lines for which evidence is
extant, for ἔν, 6, and Syr. C. are not here extant for Matthew. I
will conclude with a quotation from Hort (vol. i. p. 150)—the
italics are mine. ‘It must not of course be assumed to follow

328 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. ΤΙ

that B has remained unaffected by sporadic corruption . . . in
the Gospel of Matthew, for instance, it has occasionally admitted
widely spread readings of very doubtful genuineness.”’ I suggest
that the insertion of τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε is one of these.
The minor agreements which I have examined above include
all that are sufficiently striking to be worth discussing in detail.
The residue are agreements still more minute. Of these textual
assimilation is the probable explanation. Indeed, it would
perhaps be a better explanation of some of those which in the
earlier part of this chapter I have attributed to the coincident
editorial activity of Matthew and Luke. Very few of the scholars
who have treated of this aspect of the Synoptic Problem appear
to me to have an adequate appreciation of the immense amount
of variation that exists, even between MSS. of the same family,
in regard to just the kind of small points that are here involved,
such as the order of words, interchange of prepositions especially
in composition, substitution of one conjunction for another, the
use of the article with proper names, and the like. Burton,
using the printed text of Huck’s Synopsis, has counted the
agreements—apart from mere variation in order—and finds 275
words distributed over 175 separate phrases, of which all that
are in any degree significant have been discussed above.! Other
scholars have produced similar calculations.2 But when the
question at issue depends on minutiae of this kind, any figures
whatsoever based on the printed text are wholly fallacious. The
Byzantine MSS. present a fairly uniform text ; not so the earliest
copies. We have 6 MSS. earlier than the year a.p. 500; of
these Bx are very much closer to one another than any other
two. So far as those readings are concerned which make any
appreciable difference to the sense, the differences between these
MSS. are not numerous. In the Appendices ad Novum Testa-

1 Principles of Literary Criticism of the Synoptic Problem, p. 17.
3 Hawkins (Hor, Syn.” p. 208 ff.), using the text of W.H., gives 20+118
+“ about 100” = 238, excluding cases which are obviously due to the influence

of 9.

cx.xt MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 329

mentum (Oxford, 1889) Dr. Sanday gave a comprehensive selection
of the important variants in the Gospels ; and so far as Bx are
concerned, recent discovery has nothing to add to this list. In
the 166 variants, he adduces, By differ 44 times, 1.6. there are
in all four Gospels only 44 differences between these MSS.
sufficient to affect the sense to any appreciable extent. Never-
theless, Mr. Hoskier! has found it possible to collect 3036 instances
of divergence between B andy. The majority of these, I take
it, are slips of the pen by the individual scribes; but the rest are
made up of exactly the sort of minute points in regard to which
Matthew and Luke agree against Mark. But, if there are as
many as 1000 differences of this order between those two of our
oldest MSS. which in general are the most closely agreed with one
another, what is the use of calculations based on a printed text ?

CoNCLUSION

In conclusion, I would offer certain general reflections sug-
gested by the detailed evidence discussed above. I apprehend
that a reader who has read this chapter hastily, without having
previously perused the chapter on the Manuscript Tradition,
might possibly be inclined to say that I have taken the liberty
of deserting the accepted text to pick and choose from any
out-of-the-way MS. any reading that happens to fit in with my
argument. Quite the contrary; I have purposely limited my
citations to a very few MSS., selected because on other grounds
they can be proved to represent local texts current at the
beginning of the third century. And the principles on which
I have used their evidence are, in the main, those formulated
by Hort, modified in their application by the discovery of fresh
evidence since his time. 10 may be worth while to elaborate
this point.

1 Codex B and its Allies, vol. ii., Quaritch, 1914. I have to thank the
learned author for a presentation copy of this work, which I have found useful,

especially in drawing up Appendix I. I am, however, unable to assent to the
main conclusions which he draws from the phenomena.

990 THE FOUR GOSPELS pr, ΤΠ

(a) The great step forward made by Hort in restoring the
original text of the Gospels was his inflexible resolution, first,
to go behind the printed text to the original MSS. ; secondly, to
go behind the evidence of the mass of MSS. to the small minority
which could be proved to represent texts current in the earliest
period. When Hort wrote, several of our most important
authorities were unknown. This new knowledge has not altered
Hort’s principles, but it has considerably extended the field of
early texts which the critic must consider.

(Ὁ) Hort recognised assimilation as a principal cause of
corruption, and made freedom from assimilation one of his
principal criteria of a pure text. He found the text of B the one
that best satisfied this criterion, as well as certain others ; but
in a few cases he judged that B also had suffered from assimilation
in the form of interpolations of a harmonistic character from
which D and the Old Latin had escaped. These he designated
“Western non-interpolations.” He also noticed and put in
brackets as doubtful a number of minor “ non-interpolations ”
of the same kind—though he hesitated definitely to reject them.
I suggest that, in view of the evidence submitted above, this
hesitation is shown in many cases to be unnecessary. Again, the
determination of “ Eastern” texts as well as “ Western” has
been made possible by recent discoveries; surely Hort would
have attached equal weight to the “ non-interpolations” of
this group of ‘‘ Eastern ” authorities.

(c) The reader may have noticed that, in the list of passages
discussed above, there are four instances in which Hort deserted
B—and the result was to create a minor agreement. Elsewhere,
if he had deserted B, a minor agreement would have vanished.
If the instances are examined, it wil] be seen that in each of these
cases Hort was faced by a conflict between two of the principles
of criticism on which he worked. On the one hand, there was the
principle that a reading which makes the Gospels differ is more
likely to be original than one that makes them agree; on the
other was the principle that a MS. which approves itself as correct

cx.xt MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK 331

in five cases out of six is, other things being equal, entitled to
be very seriously considered in the sixth. Now when, in their
practical application, two critical principles conflict, the choice
of reading necessarily becomes a matter of entirely subjective
preference—unless we can find some objective criterion.

The moral I would draw is, that, if we will only use it, the
objective criterion we desiderate is in our hands. The investiga-
tion summarised in this chapter has shown, I claim, that the
only valid objection to the theory that the document used by
Matthew and Luke was our Mark—that, namely, based on the
existence of the minor agreements of these Gospels against
Mark—is completely baseless. But if so, it follows that we
are entitled—I would rather say we are bownd—whenever the
balance of MS. evidence is at all even, to make the determining
factor in our decision the compatibility of a particular reading
with the demonstrated fact of the dependence of Matthew and
Luke on Mark. Renounce once and for all the chase of the
phantom Ur-Marcus, and the study of the minor agreements
becomes the highway to the recovery of the purest text of the
Gospels.

LIST OF PARABLES

A
In Matthew only
The Tares (xiii. 24 ff.). The Unmerciful Servant (xviii. 23 ff.).
The Hid Treasure (xiii. 44). The Labourers in the Vineyard (xx. 1 ff.).
The Pearl of Great Price (xiii. 45 f.). ©The Two Sons (xxi. 28 ff.).
The Drag-net (xiii. 47 ff.). The Virgins (xxv. 1 ff.).
B

In Mark only
The Seed growing secretly (iv. 26 ff.).

σ
In Luke only

The Two Debtors (vii. 41 ff.). The Rash King (xiv. 31 ff.).
The Good Samaritan (x. 30 ff.). The Lost Coin (xv. 8 ff.).
The Importunate Friend (xi. 5 ff.). The Prodigal Son (xv. 11 ff.).
The Rich Fool (xii. 16 ff.). The Unrighteous Steward (xvi. 1 ff.).
The Watching Servants (xii. 35 ff.). Dives and Lazarus (xvi. 19 ff.).
The Barren Fig-tree (xiii. 6 ff.). Unprofitable Servants (xvii. 7 ff.).
The Lowest Seat (xiv. 7 ff.). The Unjust Judge (xviii. 1 ff.).
The Tower Builder (xiv. 28 ff.). Pharisee and Publican (xviii. 9 ff.).

The parables occurring in more than one Gospel are given on p. 243.

Conventional usage seems to include “‘ The Watching Servants” and “ The
Lowest Seat” in the category parable; but, curiously enough, it excludes
«The Houses on Sand and Rock,” Mt. vii. 24 ff.=Lk. vi. 47 ff., and “ The
Children in the Market Place,” Mt. xi. 16 ff.= Lk. vii. 31 ff.

332

XII
THE LOST END OF MARK
SYNOPSIS

Tue MS. EvipENcE

Greek, Syriac, Armenian and Old Georgian evidence for complete
omission of Mk. xvi. 9-16.

Significance of the Shorter Conclusion and of the epithet xoAoBo-
δάκτυλος.

Early evidence for the Longer Conclusion. The “ Freer logion ”
—an addition found in W.

Tue Loss A PRIMITIVE ONE

There is no difficulty in supposing either (a) that the Gospel was
never finished, or (b) that the earliest copy was accidentally mutilated.

The view that Mark went out of circulation for a time so that
only one damaged copy survived is incompatible with the evidence
for its wide use in the first half of the second century.

There are also fatal objections to the theory that the original
ending was deliberately suppressed.

The copies of Mark used by Matthew and Luke seem to have
ended abruptly at the same point as our oldest MSS. Τί so, the loss
must be primitive.

Tue LonGER CoNCLUSION

The note in a X°"* Armenian codex attributing the Longer
Conclusion to the Presbyter Ariston probably represents, not a
genuine tradition, but an ingenious conjecture by some reader of
Eusebius.

Considerations of textual criticism suggest a Roman origin for
the Longer Conclusion.

The addition found in W favours the hypothesis that it was

333

394 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. Π

originally composed as a catechetical summary of Resurrection
Appearances, not as a conclusion to the Gospel.

Ture Lost Enpinc—A SpPEcuLATION

Tentative suggestion that the Appearance to Mary Magdalene
and that to Peter by the lake in the Fourth Gospel represent,
directly or indirectly, the lost ending of Mark.

Two objections from the standpoint of textual criticism considered.

The possibility that the conclusion of the Apocryphal Gospel of
Peter was derived from the Lost End of Mark.

Considerations which suggest that John xxi. represents a portion
of the Lost Ending.

Considerations in support of the view that an Appearance to
Mary Magdalene was also found in Mark.

The evidence available quite insufficient to establish an assured
result. But the improbability that the earliest tradition of the
Resurrection Appearances should have left no trace at all in the
Gospels is so great that even a tentative hypothesis is worth
consideration.

CHAPTER XII
THE LOST END OF MARK

THe MS. EvipENcE

Evsesius, c. 325, the most widely read scholar of Christian
antiquity, states that in the oldest and best MSS. known to him
the Gospel of Mark ended with the words “ for they were afraid,”
xvi. 8; and he did not include the succeeding twelve verses in
his canons or tables of parallel passages.1 The Gospel ends at
this point in Bx, the two oldest and best MSS. known to us;
and as, in view of the statement of Eusebius, we should expect,
there is good evidence (cf. p. 88) that it was absent from the
old text of Caesarea represented by fam. ©. The Gospel ends at
the same point in Syr. 8. ; also in three of the oldest MSS. of the
Armenian, which is additional evidence for the omission either
in fam. © or in the Old Syriac. A fourth very early Armenian
contains the last twelve verses, but separated from the rest of
the Gospel with a note “of the presbyter Ariston.” In the
oldest MS. of the Georgian version, which is dated 897, the
Gospel ends at xvi. 8. But the “ Longer Conclusion ” (as the
last twelve verses are usually styled) is added as a sort of
Appendix to the Four Gospels after the end of John, having
apparently been copied from another text.”

What is known as the “Shorter Conclusion” is found in

1 The fact that the verses were ignored in the Eusebian canons is noted at
the end of Codex 1, 1582, and other MSS.

2 The Adysh Gospels ἡ (Phototypic edition), Moscow, 1916. I owe this
information to my friend Dr. R. P. Blake.
335

336 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. Π

L Y 579 and two uncial fragments, in the Sahidic and Aethiopic
versions, and in the African Latin k; also in the margin in one
Greek cursive, in the Harclean Syriac, and in the oldest MS. of
the Bohairic. It reads as follows: “ And all that had been com-
manded them they briefly reported to Peter and his company ;
and after these things Jesus himself appeared, and from the
East to the West sent through them the sacred and incorruptible
proclamation of eternal salvation.” In these Greek MSS. and
most of the versions, but not in k, the Longer Conclusion (Mk.
xvi. 9-20) follows the Shorter, being usually introduced by the
words, “ This also is current,” ἐστὶ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα.

As the Shorter Conclusion is obviously an attempt by some
early editor to heal the gaping wound, the MSS. and versions
which contain it really afford additional evidence for a text that
ended with ἐφοβοῦντο yap.

The distribution of the MSS. and versions, taken in connec-
tion with the statement of Eusebius, compels us to assume that
the Gospel ended here in the first copies that reached Africa,
Alexandria, Caesarea, and Antioch. Since in all probability the
African text originally came from Rome, the burden of proof
lies on the person who would argue that it was not also missing
from the most ancient Roman text. And this would explain
the epithet κολοβοδάκτυλος (as if in English one were to say
“ docked ”) applied to Mark by the Roman theologian, Hippo-
lytus, c. 200. Hippolytus himself used a text of Mark which
contained the last twelve verses and understands the epithet of
its author ; but its origin is more easily explained as originally
applied to the book. Originally κολοβοδάκτυλος was used of
a man who cut off a thumb in order to escape military service.
Wordsworth and White suggest it may have come to mean
“ shirker,”’ and that Hippolytus found the term applied to Mark
by Marcion in order to discredit his Gospel, in allusion to the
withdrawal from the work in Pamphylia which St. Paul so much
resented, Acts xv. 38. But even so, Marcion’s attack would have
been twice as effective if the epithet carried a double entendre,

OH. XII THE LOST END OF MARK 337

the author a shirker, his Gospel a torso. At any rate the author
of the Gospel cannot have originally meant to end it without the
account of the Appearance to the Apostles in Galilee which is
twice prophesied in the text (Mk. xiv. 28, xvi. 7). Indeed, the
words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ in Greek may not even be the end of a
sentence ; they lead us to expect a clause beginning with μή,
“They were afraid, lest they should be thought mad,” or some-
thing to that effect.

The Longer Conclusion, found in the majority of MSS. and
in our printed texts, is not at all in the style of Mark; and, as
will appear later, a close study of its contents makes it in the
last degree improbable that it was written by Mark himself.
But it must have been added at a very early date. Irenaeus,
ὁ. 186,1: quotes xvi. 19 expressly as from “the end of Mark ” ;
and the Longer Conclusion already stood in the text used by
Tatian when compiling his Diatessaron c. 170; and there are
possible, though not quite certain, reminiscences of it in Justin
and in Hermas. Since Bx were written in the fourth century,
both the Longer and the Shorter Conclusions were already of
great antiquity, and can hardly have been unknown to the scribes
who wrote these MSS. and, for that matter, to a fairly long
succession of MSS. from which they were copied. Incidentally
I may be permitted to remark that an asceticism which could
decline to accept either of these endings argues a fidelity to a
text believed to be more ancient and more authentic, which
materially increases our general confidence in the textual tradi-
tion which these MSS. represent.

The discovery of W has added yet another to the previously
known endings of the Gospel. After xvi. 14 occurs the section
(part of which is quoted by Jerome, as occurring in some
MSS.), “And they replied saying, this age of lawlessness and
unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow what is under the
unclean spirits (emending two words of the Greek to correspond
with Jerome’s Latin) to comprehend the true power of God ;

1 «Tn fine autem evangelii ait Marcus,’ Adv. Haer. iii. 10. 6.
Z

338 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. Ἢ

therefore reveal thy righteousness. Already they were speaking
to Christ ; and Christ told them in addition that the limit of the
years of the authority of Satan has been fulfilled, but other
terrible things are at hand, even for the sinners on whose behalf
I was delivered up to death, that they might turn to the truth
and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the heavenly
spiritual incorruptible glory of righteousness.”

Tue Loss A PRIMITIVE ONE

But how are we to account for the Gospel thus breaking off
short ? It is, of course, possible that Mark did not live to finish
it. But, if he did, it would seem probable that the end of the
roll on which it was written must have been torn off before any
copies of it had got into circulation. Otherwise such a loss
would have been repaired at once from another copy.

There is no difficulty in supposing that the original copy of
Mark, especially if the Gospel was written for the Church of
Rome about A.D. 65, almost immediately lost its conclusion.
The two ends of a roll would always be the most exposed to
damage ; the beginning ran the greater risk, but, in a book
rolled from both ends, the conclusion was not safe. How in the
case of Mark the damage occurred it is useless to speculate. At
Rome in Nero’s days a variety of “ accidents” were by way of
occurring to Christians and their possessions. The author of
Hebrews, writing to the Roman Church, alludes to the patient
endurance of “ spoiling of their goods.” That the little library
of the Church, kept in the house of some prominent adherent,
should have suffered in some “ pogrom” is highly credible.
Curiously enough, there is evidence that copies of Romans were
in circulation which lacked the last two chapters, which looks

1 This is not undisputed, but it is the simplest explanation of the fact that
while Hebrews profoundly influenced the theology of the Roman Church as early
as 1 Clement (c. 96 4.D.), it was only quite late, on the authority of the East,

that it was accepted at Rome as by Paul. Probably for many years the Roman
tradition preserved the name of the real author.

OH, XII THE LOST END OF MARK 339

as if one of the earliest copies of that Epistle, the one other
document of which we can be quite sure that the Roman Church
had a copy at this time, was simiJarly mutilated.

Professor Burkitt accounts for the disappearance of the
original conclusion of Mark on a different hypothesis.1_ Mark, he
argues, contained nothing that interested the Early Church which
was not included in either Matthew or Luke ; hence for a genera-
tion or two, after those Gospels had been composed, it ceased to be
copied. Later on, when, in face of the struggle with Gnosticism,
a formal canon of accepted Gospels was under discussion, the
Roman Church remembered that among its archives was an old
copy of Mark, and insisted on this being included. But the end
of the roll had been torn off, and there was no other copy in exist-
ence from which to repair the loss. To this theory there are
formidable objections.

(1) A world-wide circulation of Mark in the first century is
implied by the use made of it by the authors of Matthew, Luke,
and John, who must have written in Churches at a wide remove
from one another in theological outlook, and probably also in
geographical situation. In view of this, the total disappearance
in the course of the next fifty years of all copies but one is not
very likely.

(2) Since Mark was made use of in the Diatessaron of Tatian,
c. 170, the supposed rediscovery of the Gospel must have taken
place before this date. And it must have been some consider-
able time before, for two reasons. First, the only point of
compiling a Harmony of the Gospels at all was to meet the
inconvenience, for purposes of practical teaching, of having four
parallel, and in some points apparently conflicting, Lives of
Christ. But the difficulty arising from there being four standard
Lives must have been in existence long enough to be felt as a
difficulty, before the remedy was looked for. Secondly, Tatian’s
copy of Mark contained the Longer Conclusion. But since the
earliest copies of the rediscovered Gospel which reached Africa,

1 F, Ὁ, Burkitt, T’wo Lectures on the Gospels, p. 33 ff. (Macmillan, 1901).

340 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. II

Alexandria, and Syria did not contain this, there must, on
Burkitt’s theory, have been an interval of time after the re-
discovery of Mark during which the Gospel circulated without
this addition to its text. The supposed rediscovery, then, must
have been some time before 170, at the latest 165. Hence the
period of complete disuse (during which all copies but one had
time to disappear) must have been the fifty years or so previous
to this. But for this period we have evidence of a widespread
interest in and use of the Gospel.

(a) I regard it as practically certain that Mark was known to
Justin c. 155; also to Hermas either c. 140, or, as I think more
likely, c. 100. Both these are evidence for use in Rome.

(b) For Asia we have the evidence of Papias. He wrote
rather late in life at a date which Harnack fixes as between
145-160; other scholars prefer an earlier date, 130-145. His
quotation of the famous statement about Mark made by John
the Elder has already been discussed (p. 17 f.), so I will only
stay to point out that, whatever else it proves, it is convincing
evidence of three facts. First, at the time when Papias wrote,
Mark was regarded in Asia as a standard work about whose
origin Christians in general were interested. Secondly, the same
thing held good in Papias’ youth; or why, when he was collecting
what seemed to him the most valuable of the teachings of the
elders, did he trouble to note what they said about this Gospel ?
Thirdly, if we accept the view maintained by some scholars that

1 Trenaeus, A.D. 185, styles Papias ‘‘a hearer of John, a companion of Poly-
carp, and an ancient worthy’ (ἀρχαῖος dvjp). This distinctly favours the earlier
date. But the De Boor fragment (printed Lightfoot and Harmer, Apostolic
Fathers, p. 518 f.) seems to imply that he looked back on the time of Hadrian,
who died a.p. 138. As, however, the statement containing the reference to
Hadrian is attributed by Eusebius, iv. 3, to Quadratus, who, he expressly says,
lived in the reign of Hadrian, it is probable that the fragmentist (who is un-
doubtedly indebted to Eusebius elsewhere) is really quoting, not Papias, but
Eusebius—especially as the statement that a contemporary of Christ lived till
the time of Hadrian is absurd, while it is by no means unlikely that one should
have lived till the time (ἐ.6. till the birth) of Quadratus, who may have been an old
man in Hadrian’s reign. See the discussion by Prof. J. V. Bartlet in Hastings’
Dict. of Christ and the Gospels, ii. p. 311, col. 2.

cH. XII THE LOST END OF MARK 341

Papias had not actually met the Elder John, Papias was not
the first to elicit the statement from the Elder, in which case
the date at which the Gospel of Mark, and the degree of authority
to be attached to it, was a matter of public interest is pushed
back earlier than Papias’ youth.

(c) Irenaeus! says that Mark was the Gospel quoted as their
authority by those heretics ‘“ who separate Jesus from Christ and
say that Christ remained impassive while Jesus suffered.” This
statement is borne out by the fact that the apocryphal Gospel
of Peter, which was evidently written in order to promulgate
views of that kind, exhibits a special preference for Mark. The
date assigned to “ Apocryphal Peter” by most scholars is 130—
140. Personally I think that too early ; but, on any hypothesis,
the above statement of Irenaeus and the preference shown by
“Peter” for Mark are evidence of the vogue of that Gospel in
yet another circle in the middle of the second century.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the facts is that
the comparative neglect of Mark, of which there is plenty of
evidence in later times, began after, not before, the universal
acceptance of the Four Gospel Canon.

There is still less to be said for a hypothesis, at one time
popular on the Continent, that the original end of Mark was
deliberately suppressed and the Longer Conclusion substituted
for it. This is supposed to have been done in Asia as part of
the process of forming an official Four Gospel Canon in the
latter part of the second century, the object of the suppression
being to get rid of the discrepancy between Mark’s account, in
which the first Resurrection Appearance is in Galilee, and the
Jerusalem tradition, followed by Luke and John.

The main objections to this theory are four.

(1) The idea that the Four Gospel Canon arose in Asia, or,
indeed, that it came into existence as a result of any one official
act at all, is one for which, so it seems to me, the evidence is
non-existent.

1 Adv, Haer, iii. 11. 7.

942 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

(2) While the revisers were about it, why did they not
suppress the end of Matthew as well, since, in the matter of the
first Appearance being in Galilee, his account equally conflicts
with that of Luke and John? Again, if they were out to remove
discrepancies between the Gospels, why did they not begin the
“cut” a verse earlier, so as to remove the contradiction between
Mark’s statement that the women “told no man,” and the
statement by Matthew and Luke that they at once went and
told the disciples ?

(3) How was it that revisers succeeded in getting the
Churches of Africa, Alexandria, and Syria to accept at once the
excision of the original ending, which spoils the Gospel, without
accepting the substitute which is said to harmonise it with
the others ?

(4) The use made of Mark by the authors of the other three
Gospels proves, I must repeat, that Mark was universally read at
the end of the first century; and it continued to be so throughout
the second. Hence the suppression of the ending of a Gospel
so widely circulated—and that at such an inappropriate point,
ἐφοβοῦντο yap—would only have been possible if there had
existed, as in the modern Roman communion, a highly centralised
organisation able to enforce world-wide uniformity. All our
evidence as to the history of the Church during the first two
centuries points to the lack of any such thing. Least of all
was it exercised to secure uniformity in the text of the
Gospels. We have actual MSS. written in the fifth century
to show that even then there were still current three different
endings of Mark (not counting the absence of an ending found in
s B), viz. the Longer Conclusion A C D, the augmented Longer
Conclusion W, the Shorter Conclusion ᾧ (1, Ψ). If this variety
was possible in the fifth century, after a hundred years of oecu-
menical conference, the notion is absurd that a machine existed
in the second century capable of securing a world-wide excision
in the text.

Let us now ask whether the end of Mark may not have been

OH, XII THE LOST END OF MARK 343

already missing in the copies of the Gospel used by Matthew
and Luke.

(1) The message of the Angel, “Go tell his disciples and
Peter he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him
as he said unto you” (Mk. xvi. 7), is clearly intended to refer
back to the previously recorded prophecy of Christ, “ Howbeit
after I am raised up I will go before you into Galilee”’ (Mk. xiv. 28).
Thus we are bound to infer that the lost conclusion of Mark
contained an account of an Appearance to the Apostles in
Galilee. Further, this must either have come after an Appearance
to Peter separately, or it must have been an Appearance in
which Peter was in some way especially singled out for notice,
as he is in Jn. xxi.

Now Matthew follows the text of Mark all through the
Passion story with great fidelity; if, then, the copy of Mark
used by him had contained a conclusion of this sort we should
expect to find it reproduced by Matthew. But Matthew, though
he records an Appearance to the Eleven in Galilee, does not
especially mention the name of Peter in connection with it.
Again, the most striking thing about the Gospel of Mark is the
author’s gift for telling a story in a vivid, picturesque, and
realistic way. Elsewhere, wherever Matthew is following Mark,
he abbreviates slightly and occasionally omits a picturesque
detail; nevertheless the account he gives is always a vividly
realised and well-told story—full of detail, though not quite
so full as the Marcan original. But Matthew’s account of the
Resurrection Appearances—to the two Maries (Mt. xxviii. 9-10)
and subsequently to the Eleven (xxvii. 16-20)—is extremely
meagre and is conspicuously lacking in these usual character-
istics. Both, then, because Matthew does not mention Peter
and because his narrative becomes exceptionally vague at the
exact point where the authentic text of Mark now ends, we
infer that his copy of Mark ended at that point.

(2) Luke, we have seen, based his account of the Passion
and Resurrection mainly on his non-Marcan source ; but he has

344 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

omitted nothing of interest in the Passion story as found in Mark.
He prefers his own source wherever it gives an equally elaborate
or interesting version of any incident, but, where Mark con-
tained something not occurring in his other source, he has
added it in an appropriate context. If, then, Mark contained
a detailed description of an Appearance to Peter and to the
Apostles in Galilee, it would have been, to say the least of it,
a “strong” procedure to ignore completely this well-established
tradition and represent all the Appearances as having taken
place in or near Jerusalem. But if in his copy of Mark, as in
ours, there was no account of Appearances to ignore, that
difficulty disappears. There is a more important consideration.
At the end of the Emmaus incident Luke has a reference to
the Appearance to Peter. The disciples are made to say, “‘ The
Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared to Simon ” (Lk. xxiv. 34).
That the first Appearance was to Peter is stated by Paul (1 Cor.
xv. 5) and is implied in Mark. Luke’s allusion makes it clear that
he wished to bring out this fact. He accepted the tradition ;
but it would seem as if he knew no more details about it than
can be inferred from 1 Cor. and the existing text of Mark. If
he had found a detailed account of the Appearance to Peter in his
copy of Mark he would surely have made some effort to adapt
it to his story, even if he was puzzled by the Galilean tradition.

We conclude, then, either that Mark did not live to finish
his Gospel—at Rome in Nero’s reign this might easily happen—
or that the end of the Gospel was already lost when it was used
by Matthew and Luke.

THE LONGER CONCLUSION

The note by an unknown scribe of an Armenian MS. of the
tenth century which suggests that the Longer Conclusion was
the work of the ‘“ Presbyter Ariston” has been taken rather
too seriously in some quarters. It is, of course, always possible
that a genuine tradition may survive in some late MS. in an

OH, XII THE LOST END OF MARK 345

out-of-the-way district. But the principles of historical criticism,
as ordinarily accepted, do not encourage us to begin by taking
for granted that a statement is good evidence when it appears
for the first time in a writer who, on the face of it, is far removed
both in time and place from the facts he attests.

That such evidence here is in itself totally wanting will
appear from the three following considerations.

(1) In three of the four tenth-century Armenian MSS.
examined by Mr. Conybeare (than which I believe no older are
known) the Gospel of Mark ends as in Bx. This is a piece of
evidence for the history of the text of some importance; for
it shows that MSS., either Greek or Syriac, which lacked the
Longer Conclusion were used by the original translators c. 400,
or else by those who revised it at a slightly later date. Thus
in any case it is evidence of the circulation or superior repute
of the shorter text in the Far East. The fourth MS., which
(after a break, indicating that the scribe regarded what follows
as a sort of Appendix) adds the Longer Conclusion, does so with
the words “of the Presbyter Ariston” in the margin of the
first line. This again is an important piece of evidence; it is
prima facie evidence that the Longer Conclusion was a late
introduction in Armenia, and that when first introduced it was
not regarded as being by the pen of Mark himself.

The possibility is theoretically open that the Longer Ending,
plus the note attributing it to Ariston, was in the earliest form
of the Armenian, but that later scribes—feeling that, if it was
not by Mark himself, it was not canonical—dropped it out.
But against this are the facts—(a) that from the fifth century
onward the Longer Conclusion stood in the texts received in
both the Greek and the Syriac Churches, both of which had
considerable influence on Armenian Christianity. (6) In other
respects the Armenian text is closely related to that of fam. ©
and Syr. S., which omit the Longer Conclusion. (c) Later
Armenian MSS. included the Longer Conclusion without any
note of doubt.

946 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

It appears, then, that all the influences known to have operated
were in the direction, not of excluding, but of accepting this
particular reading. In that case the words “ of the Presbyter
Ariston” must either have come in at the same time as the
Longer Conclusion, or else it must represent a conjecture made
at a still later date to account for the fact that the addition
was not contained in the older text. Hence, whatever the
origin of the tradition, it has no claim to be regarded as specially
ancient ; for if the oldest Armenian did not contain the Longer
Conclusion it could not have contained a note about its authorship.

(2) The end of Mark was a problem much discussed. Eusebius
alludes to it several times, Jerome more than once. It is treated
in the Commentary attributed to Victor of Antioch found in
many MSS.; and numerous MSS. have scholia dealing with it.
It is thus extremely improbable that any authentic tradition
as to the authorship of the Longer Conclusion which survived
would have entirely escaped the notice of all these, to turn up
in Armenia in the tenth century.

(3) The occurrence in a tenth-century Armenian MS. of
interesting information about the authorship of the disputed
ending of Mark is a phenomenon which cannot be estimated
apart from the appearance in the Greek-speaking world a century
earlier of much information of the same sort, quite obviously
based on mere conjecture or on tradition of no value at all.
From the [X°™ MS. K, for example, we learn that the Gospel
of Matthew was published by him in Jerusalem eight years after
the Ascension. From Y, of the same date, we gather that it was
written by Matthew in Hebrew, but translated by John; later
MSS. have a similar note, but substitute for the name John that
of James, the brother of the Lord, or Bartholomew. A Vulgate
Latin MS. of the same century tells us that the fourth Gospel
was written by Papias at the dictation of the Apostle John.}
Surely, when we find a whole crop of this sort of thing springing
up in Greek and Latin MSS., the burden of proof lies with

1 Quoted in Tischendorf, i. p. 967 ad fin.

oH, XII THE LOST END OF MARK 347

anyone who wishes us to take seriously a piece of information
of a precisely similar character which turns, up in an isolated
Armenian MS. a century later.

If anyone asks, why should conjecture light on the name of
Ariston in particular—or Aristion, which seems to have been an
interchangeable form of it—one may hazard a guess. What was
wanted was a name which would give to the Longer Conclusion
the authority of an eye-witness. But all names of Apostles
were excluded, since an Apostle would be hardly likely to add
an appendix to a Gospel written by one not an Apostle. The
Church history of Eusebius was everywhere read, and no pass-
age would be more familiar than the one (cf. p. 18 above) on
the origin of the Gospels in which he tells how Papias reports
that he diligently sought for authentic traditions from Apostles
and from Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord.
Here we have all the materials for a “brilliant conjecture.” Is
not the Longer Conclusion of Mark one of the traditions derived
by Papias from an eye-witness, Aristion, the disciple of the
Lord? Eusebius in the very same context alludes to the theory
(of Dionysius of Alexandria) that the Apocalypse was the work
of John the Elder. In the Eastern Church in the third and
fourth centuries there was a strong tendency to regard the
Apocalypse as, at best, of sub-canonical authority, and it was
not in the canon of the Syriac-speaking church on which the
Armenian largely depended for its literature. The Longer
Conclusion of Mark was another such sub-canonical writing—
what more natural than to surmise that it was the work of the
second of the two “ disciples of the Lord” mentioned by Papias.
The conjecture is such a brilliant one that we might be tempted
to accept it and believe that Papias had actually said so, did we
not know how puzzled were Eusebius and others, who must have
read Papias, about the authenticity of the Longer Conclusion.

But if the Longer Conclusion has really nothing to do with
Papias’ Aristion, where did it come from? At any rate we have
two facts to start from.

348 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 0

(1) It was in the text of Mark used at Rome before Tatian,
170; possibly} in that used in Ephesus by the author of
Epistula Apostolorum, c. 180, and certainly in the text of
Irenaeus, 185, who was connected with both Rome and Ephesus.

(2) It was not in the text used in Africa, Alexandria, Caesarea,
and Antioch half a century later; and, to judge from the MS.
evidence, did not establish itself there before the end of the
fourth century.

It is thus a fair presumption that it originated either in
Rome or in “ Asia.” The case for Asia depends, so far as I can
see, on four pieces of evidence. (a) The idea that the Longer
Conclusion is connected with the Aristion mentioned by Papias.
On that no more need be said. (6) The theory that the original
Conclusion was suppressed and this substituted for it at the time
of forming of the Gospel Canon. The baselessness of this
theory I have, I hope, sufficiently demonstrated above. (ὁ) Mk.
xvi. 18 reads, “if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall in
no wise hurt them.” Papias, according to Eusebius,” gave,
perhaps on the authority of the daughters of Philip who lived
at Hierapolis, a ‘“‘ wonderful story about Justus who was sur-
named Barsabas, how that he drank a deadly poison, and yet,
by the grace of God, suffered no inconvenience.” It is inferred
that a document which apparently alludes to this incident must
have been written in Asia where the story was known. The
inference is precarious. It is not suggested Justus ever left
Palestine; but “all roads led to Rome,” and if a story of a
wonderful escape of an eminent Christian from poisoning was
current it would probably be told in Rome before long. (d) The
Longer Conclusion is supposed to be dependent upon the Fourth
Gospel, and, therefore, to have been written in the Church where

1 Even in view of the other passages (cf. p. 70) which suggest that the
Epistula used a Western text, the inference that its author knew the Longer
Conclusion is highly precarious. The women go to the tomb ‘“ weeping and
mourning,’ Hptst.9; Mary goes to the Apostles “‘as they mourned and wept,”
Mk. xvi. 10.

2 Euseb. ἢ... iii. 39.

Va ite A i

OH. XII THE LOST END OF MARK 349

that Gospel was earliest in circulation. But, if the author of the
Longer Conclusion knew John, why did he ignore the Appearance
to Thomas? Presumably he compiled his list of Appearances
with an apologetic purpose; why then leave out the most
“evidential” of them all? There is only one point of contact
between John and the Longer Conclusion, and that is the mention
of Mary Magdalene as the witness of the first Appearance. But
Matthew also records the first Appearance as being to Mary
Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Jesus. This
second Mary is otherwise an absolutely unknown figure.

It is a law of the evolution of tradition that names to which
no incident of dramatic interest is attached tend, either to
gather incidents round themselves, or else to drop out. Consider
this series. Mark mentions three women at the tomb, Matthew
mentions two, the Shorter Conclusion only one. That one was
not only their leader, but also the only one about whom a fact
of interest was known, “‘that seven devils were cast out of her.”
Besides this tendency in tradition, the author of the Longer
Conclusion was evidently influenced by the desire to be brief.
If he summarises in two verses the Emmaus story, which takes
twenty-three verses in Luke, he obviously does not want to fill up
space with mere names. Obviously a knowledge of John is not
required to explain the dropping of the other names. The
Appearance to Mary may be derived either from Matthew or
else from oral tradition, for it is the kind of thing in which oral
tradition would be interested. Again, if we look more closely at
the parallels we note that in the Longer Conclusion the disciples,
when they heard from Mary that “he was alive and had been
seen by her, disbelieved.” There is not the slightest hint of this
in John; Thomas, who does doubt, is not then present ; but it
is emphatically asserted in Luke in regard to the reception by
the Apostles of the news of the three women that they had seen
the angels who said He was risen. Thus, while the mention of
Mary, the one supposed point of contact with John, can equally
well be interpreted as a point of contact with Matthew, there is

350 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

a notable absence of allusion to the most striking and, for the
author’s purpose, most useful story in John. But, since John
was the characteristically Ephesian Gospel, we should expect ta
find quite a number of rather marked points of contact with it
in a document of this sort emanating from Asia.

If, however, the case for Asia collapses, we may be content
to accept the alternative view to which the textual evidence
very decidedly points, and affirm that the Longer Conclusion
was added in Rome.

With this in mind let us examine the document a little more
closely. Everything in it, except the mention of the Appearance
to Mary and the drinking poison, appears to be derived either
from the Gospel of Luke or from the Acts. There are summary
allusions to the disbelief by the Apostles in the women’s message
(Mk. xvi. 11, cf. Lk. xxiv. 11); to the walk from Emmaus; to
the Appearance to the Eleven, with their hesitation to believe the
reality of the thing they saw and the command to preach to all
nations; to the Apostolic signs—casting out devils, speaking
with tongues, the viper which clung to St. Paul in Malta but
did not hurt him. Even the Appearance to Mary Magdalene,
though not derived from Luke, identifies her by a formula
taken from Lk. viii. 2, ‘‘ from whom he had cast out seven devils.”

The natural inference that we should draw is that the Longer
Conclusion was written in a Church where Luke and Acts had
been long established, but where Matthew, if known at all, had
only recently been accepted; and Harnack produces some reasons
for the belief that Matthew was not accepted at Rome till
about a.p. 120.1. The Longer Conclusion opens in a way which
suggests that it was not originally intended, like the Shorter
Conclusion, to heal a wound in the text of Mark. It reads as if
it was originally a summary intended for catechetical purposes ;
later on the bright idea occurred to some one of adding it as a
sort of appendix to his copy of Mark. In the first instance an

1 The Date of the Acts and the Synoptists, E.T., p. 134 n. (Williams and
Norgate, 1911).

oH. XII THE LOST END OF MARK 351

interval of a blank line might be left to mark that it was not
part of the authentic text, but in subsequent copies this blank
line would soon disappear. The hypothesis that Mk. xvi. 9-20 was
originally a separate document has the additional advantage of
making it somewhat easier to account for the supplement in the
text of W (cf. p. 337 f.) known as the “ Freer logion.” A cate-
chetical summary is a document which lends itself to expansion ;
the fact that a copy of it had been added to Mark would not at
once put out of existence all other copies or prevent them
suffering expansion. No doubt as soon as the addition became
thoroughly established in the Roman text of Mark, it would
cease to be copied as a separate document. But supposing that
a hundred years later an old copy of it in the expanded version
turned up. It would then be mistaken for a fragment of a very
ancient MS. of Mark, and the fortunate discoverer would hasten
to add to his copy of Mark—which, of course, he would suppose
to be defective—the addition preserved in this ancient witness.

Tue Lost Enpinc—A SPECULATION

If I venture a suggestion on this subject, it is with the dis-
tinct proviso that what I write is intended to be read, not as
“criticism,” but merely as “scientific guessing.”” Noharm is done
by guessing of this sort, it may even have a certain interest,
provided always that no one mistakes the speculations so
reached for “ assured results of criticism,” and then proceeds to
use them as premises from which further deductions may be
drawn. The “scientific guess ” in which I venture to indulge is
that the lost end of Mark contained an Appearance to Mary
Magdalene, followed by one to Peter and others when fishing on
the Lake of Galilee, and that John derived his version of these
incidents from the lost conclusion of Mark. I do not, of course,
suggest that we have either of these stories exactly as they stood
in Mark. Wherever John adopts a story from Mark, he does so
with a considerably greater freedom in regard to language and

352 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. II

details than do Matthew or Luke. Nevertheless, except where he
is conflating material from Mark with another source, John does
not seem substantially to alter the main facts and the general
impression. This hypothesis I believe is worth working out in
detail. But before doing this, two prima facie objections must
be met.

(1) At first sight it may seem unlikely that the original
ending of Mark should be preserved in Ephesus but lost in Rome.
But we know that during Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, Mark
was contemplating a visit to Asia (Col. iv. 10), and a little later
(2 Tim. iv. 11) Paul summons him to return to Rome, “ for he is
useful to me for ministering.” The words occur in that portion
of 2 Timothy which is most universally recognised as a fragment
of a genuine letter, probably preserved at Ephesus. If so,
Mark had been working in or near Ephesus ; and, as the context
implies, was regarded by Paul as a useful and effective worker
very shortly before the date at which he wrote the Gospel.
What, then, could be a more natural thing for Mark to do, the
moment he has finished writing a Gospel for the Church of
Rome, than to send a copy to the Church of Ephesus by the next
Christian who was travelling that way on any kind of business ?
In that case the Ephesian copy would be the first ever made,
and would have been made before the original was mutilated.

We may surmise that Mark’s “usefulness for ministering ”
lay in some part in his command of anecdotes about the life
and teaching of Christ. But he would have told these stories in
Ephesus also. Hence the fact that Mark had worked in Asia
makes it possible to suggest an alternative hypothesis that John
is dependent, not on the lost written end of Mark, but upon
Mark’s account of the Resurrection Appearances, which survived
in Asia in the form of oral tradition. This hypothesis, however,
is for practical purposes so nearly equivalent to the one I have
propounded above that it may, so far as arguments for or
against it are concerned, be treated as a minor variation of the
same hypothesis.

a τὰ. ...ὄ - »"

cH. XII THE LOST END OF MARK 353

(2) If the original conclusion survived at Ephesus, how came
that which now stands in our New Testament to take its place ?
The answer to this question may well be that the present ending
was added so soon that it had time to become part of the text
accepted at Rome before the date—some time in the latter half of
the second century—when (as seems likely) the Churches of Rome
and Ephesus exchanged notes on the Canon. At any rate we
have already seen that it must have been added at a very early
date. If the Longer Conclusion was composed as a separate
document about 100-110, and had become firmly established in
the text of Mark as read in Rome, say by a.p. 140, the original
ending, even if preserved at Ephesus, would never be restored.
Mark being the Roman Gospel, the Roman text of Mark would
everywhere be regarded as the more authentic—except perhaps
in Alexandria, which also claimed a special connection with its
author. But the oldest Alexandrian text lacked an ending.
Supposing the early Ephesian and the Roman text showed two
different endings, this, if known to a scholar like Origen, would
only confirm him, brought up as he was in the traditions of
textual criticism current in Alexandria, in the belief that the
mutilated text was the original. Moreover, as we have already
seen (p. 69), the Textus Receptus was the text adopted in the
great sees of Antioch and Constantinople, so that the old text
of Ephesus was swamped at an early date and has left no trace
on the MS. tradition. This would the more easily happen since,
on our hypothesis, the same story, but told in a form more
attractive to the Christian public, was contained in John.
There would be no strong motive to keep alive what would
seem a less interesting version of the same story.

The suggestion that the story of the Appearance and final
charge to Peter on the Lake of Galilee in Jn. xxi. was derived,
with some modification, from the lost ending of Mark has been
commended by Harnack and others, on the ground mainly that
the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter contained a version of the
incident. The surviving fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel

854 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. I

of Peter ends: ‘“ But we the twelve disciples of the Lord
wept and were grieved: and each one grieving for that which
was come to pass departed to his home. But I, Simon Peter,
and Andrew my brother took our nets and went away to the
sea; and there was with us Levi, the son of Alphaeus whom
the Lord... .” Here, unfortunately, the text of the fragment
breaks off; but evidently the words constitute the beginning
of an account of an Appearance of the Lord by the Sea of
Galilee. From the fragment of it that remains it is evident
that the Gospel of Peter can in no way be regarded as an
independent historical authority. It is written in the interest
of the theory—already combated in the Asian document 1 John!
—that the Divine Christ departed from the human Jesus and
was taken up into Heaven before the latter died on the Cross.

Professor C. H. Turner? in a brilliant, and on the whole
convincing, article argues that the author of the Gospel of Peter
was familiar with our Gospel of John. It does not, however,
necessarily follow that he derived this particular incident from
Jn. xxi. If so, why does he put first an Appearance which
John distinctly affirms to be the third ? Also, why are the names
of disciples mentioned as present so different—Andrew and Levi
as against Thomas, Nathaniel, the sons of Zebedee, and two
others ? The mixture of resemblance and difference is accounted
for more easily if John and Peter are divergent versions of
a third source than if either is dependent on the other. But it
is clear that the main source used by the author of Apocryphal
Peter was Mark. And since “ Peter” claims to be written
by Mark’s master, we should expect it to concur with Mark,
except where the author desired to supplement the traditional
narrative with doctrinal modifications or legendary embellish-
ments of his own. It is noticeable that Levi the son of
Alphaeus is mentioned in “ Peter”; the description of him, “son

11 Jn. ν. 6, ‘not with water only, but with the water and the blood” (i.e.

a real death)—a reply to the position of Cerinthus, or some predecessor.
2 J.T.8., Jan. 1913.

OH, XII THE LOST END OF MARK 355

of Alphaeus,” only occurs in Mark. Also the account of the visit
of the women to the tomb follows Mark rather closely. In
particular the author preserves the detail “ Then the women
feared and fled,’ which corresponds to the last words of the true
text of Mark, but are directly contradictory to the statements
of both Matthew and Luke. Hence the hypothesis that in the
paragraph which immediately follows he is also dependent on
Mark cannot be called improbable.

In support of the view that John xxi. represents either the
lost end of Mark or an oral tradition more or less its equivalent,
five considerations may be alleged.

(1) The lost ending of Mark must have contained an Appear-
ance to Apostles in Galilee which either followed an Appearance
to Peter, or was itself one in which Peter figured in some con-
spicuous way.

(2) If the story in Jn. xxi. had stood alone in a separate
document, without the note (xxi. 14) stating that this was the
third Appearance, we should have inferred that the Appearance
described was meant to be understood as the first. We seem
to see (xxi. 2-3) a group of disciples sitting dejected and inert
after their disillusioned flight to Galilee, and Peter, always the
one with the most initiative, rousing himself to the resolution
to go back to the old and ordinary life, “I go a-fishing.” The
others follow. Jesus is seen on the bank. They do not know
Him. They seem to be taken by surprise, which is strange if
previous Appearances had already convinced them He was alive.
An incident and conversation follow of which the general signifi-
cance is a second call of Peter to be a fisher of men. His late
denial of his Master is wiped out by a reaffirmation of devo-
tion, and he is given the commission “ Feed my sheep” and
so made the leader in the Christian mission.

(3) The addition of a miraculous draught of fishes in the
story of the original call of Peter in Luke v. 4-7, and the addi-
tion, in Matthew xiv. 29-31, to the story of the Walking on the
Water of the incident of Peter leaving the boat to meet the

356 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. Π

Lord, are best explained as fragments of a story like that of
Jn. xxi. current in oral tradition. If so, they are independent
evidence that the story was in circulation at a very early date.

(4) Like everything else in the Fourth Gospel this story has
been remoulded in the light of the experience and outlook of
the author and the present needs of the Church, but it is certainly
the kind of ending one would have expected Mark to give his
Gospel. In particular, I much doubt whether Peter’s denial
would have been so emphasised in the Gospel unless as a foil
to a subsequent story, the point of which lay in its cancelling
a former weakness of the Apostle. Again, the fact that Peter,
with whatever hesitation, did ultimately come out definitely
on the side of the Gentile mission, and that in doing so he felt
that he was carrying out his Master’s real intention, must,
I think, have somehow been adumbrated in a Gospel written
for the Church of Rome.

(5) A critical analysis (cf. Chap. XIV.) of the Fourth Gospel
suggests that the two main sources which John elsewhere com-
bines are the written documents Mark and Luke (or Proto-Luke).
It is, therefore, likely that in this passage also the traditions
which he is combining are derived from the same two sources.
Since, then, the Appearance to the Apostles in Jerusalem belongs
to the Lucan tradition, those to Mary Magdalene and to Peter
while fishing by the Sea of Galilee, with the final commission
of Christ “ Feed my sheep,” may well have stood in the con-
clusion of Mark’s Gospel as it was read in Ephesus about a.p. 90.
Indeed we may surmise that one reason why the last chapter
of John (which is obviously a kind of Appendix) was added
was to harmonise that Gospel with the Marcan tradition of the
Resurrection Appearances, while affirming that the Appearance
by the Lake was the third, not, as previously related in Mark,
the first, of the Appearances to any of the Twelve.

The suggestion that the Appearance by the Sea of Galilee
was preceded by an Appearance to Mary Magdalene, something
like that recorded by John, has not, so far as I am aware, been

cH. xu THE LOST END OF MARK 357

put forward before. In its behalf I advance the following
considerations.

(1) We shall see (p. 408 ff.) that, apart from the Appearance
to Mary, John shows no trace of dependence on Matthew. The
hypothesis that the Appearance to Mary originally stood in
Mark enables us to explain the occurrence in both Mt. xxviii. 10
and Jn. xx. 17 of an Appearance to Mary with the description
of the disciples as “my brethren” which is not paralleled
elsewhere.

(2) Again, the Appearance to Mary as described by John
is entirely in the manner of the vivid and dramatic story-telling
for which Mark isfamed. Mark is one of those people who simply
cannot tell a story badly—witness the tale of the daughter
of Herodias and John the Baptist, the appeal of which to the
artistic imagination every picture gallery in Europe proves.
If ever he finished his Gospel, the Resurrection scenes would
have been visualised in every detail. And there is no scene
in the Fourth Gospel—again I call the painters in as evidence
—more vividly pictured than that of Mary Magdalene in the
Garden.

(3) John, as already observed, seems to follow alternately,
or to conflate, two main sources, Mark and Luke (or a source of
Luke). Since the Appearance to Mary is not found in Luke,
it was probably absent from his non-Marcan source—and Luke’s
copy of Mark, we have seen, ended at xvi. 8. John, then,
could not have derived the story either from Luke’s source or
from our Third Gospel. Whence, then, did John derive it? Of
course he might have got it from Matthew; but, apart from this
incident, John shows no definite knowledge of Matthew, still
less any inclination to follow him. Much the simplest hypothesis
is that John derived the Appearance to Mary from Mark (or an
oral tradition representing what Mark would have contained),
especially as an incident which turned the “fear” of the
woman into joy would have formed a most appropriate con-
tinuation of what remains of his broken text.

358 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. 0

(4) Consider the situation at Rome if, after some police raid
or riot, the end of the Church copy of Mark was found to have
been torn off. Its general purport would have been known ;
many would remember roughly what it had contained, and the
loss might have been replaced from memory. But this would
have been inaccurate, and hopes may have been entertained
that another copy might turn up. In the meantime there
would remain a tradition, growing more vague in course of time,
that the lost ending had contained an Appearance to Mary
in Jerusalem, followed by an Appearance to the Apostles in
Galilee. Now this is what we find in Matthew. The end of
Matthew is exactly the kind of conclusion we should expect
if the first man who took a copy of the mutilated Gospel to
Antioch had written down on the back of the last sheet his
recollections of the substance of what he had been told at Rome
the lost conclusion had once contained.

(5) The view that oral tradition at Rome, ultimately dependent
on the lost end of Mark, represented the first Appearance as
being to Mary, would (equally with dependence on Matthew)
account for the opening of the Longer Conclusion of Mark,
“He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had
cast out seven devils.” The seven devils are derived from
Luke (viii. 2); and as we have already noted, apart from the
Appearance to Mary, all other details in the Longer Conclusion
which occur in the New Testament at all are to be found in
Luke and Acts. For though there is a point of contact with
Matthew in the command to preach and baptize—Luke also,
it should be noted, has the command to preach to all nations—
there is in the actual language used nothing in common in the
parallel Mk. xvi. 15-16=Mt. xxviii. 19-20 but the single and
inevitable word “ baptism.”

(6) From Paul’s account of the Resurrection Appearance
(1 Cor. xv. 5) one would naturally infer that the first Appearance
was to Peter. Luke’s narrative confirms this impression. How,
then, are we to explain the emphatic statement in the Longer

EEE Ά Σ ΆϑΝΝωΝς

oH, XII THE LOST END OF MARK 359

Conclusion that the first Appearance was to Mary? I suggest
that there was ancient tradition at Rome to this effect so firmly
established that it could hold its own against the prima facie
evidence of Paul. In that case the Longer Conclusion of Mark
is best understood as the attempt to harmonise the old Roman
tradition of a first Appearance to Mary Magdalene with the
newly authenticated information which the Lucan writings
had brought to the Church. Its addition to the text of Mark
would not only help to preserve this tradition, but would be
almost necessary, if the old Roman Gospel of Mark was to
maintain its existence side by side with the longer and more
interesting, but more recent, Gospel of Luke.

At any rate the preference in three of our Gospels, as we
have them, of a tradition apparently contradicting a written
statement of Paul does require an explanation. We have definite
evidence that 1 Corinthians was the epistle which was most
widely read in Christendom in the Sub-Apostolic Age. The critic
is bound to produce a hypothesis to explain why, in despite
of this evidence that the first Appearance was to Peter, a
tradition prevailed in three different Gospels, representing
presumably three different Churches, which assigns the supreme
privilege of being the first to see the risen Lord, not to the
Prince of the Apostles, but to a woman, of whom nothing is
known save that seven devils were cast out of her. A tradition
established so early in different Churches (most probably in
Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome) must have gone back to great
antiquity and have been regarded as authenticated by irrefutable
authority. But if it originally stood in Mark, which in a point
like this may be supposed to rest on Peter’s own reminiscences,
then there was the authority of Peter himself. that he had in
this matter been forestalled by a woman.

But why, it may be objected, if the Appearance to Mary
originally stood in Mark, is it omitted in the Apocryphal
Gospel of Peter, which we have assumed is here dependent on
Mark? Apocryphal Peter, in order to vindicate its doctrinal

860 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. τὶ

curiosities, is particularly concerned to emphasise the fiction of
Apostolic authorship. This is shown by the intrusion of the
words “I, Simon Peter,” which would be wholly unnecessary
in a Gospel known to be written by an Apostle, and is, at any
rate in this particular context, a most inappropriate repetition
of a claim to authorship which must have been stated before.
But clearly an author who feels it so necessary to emphasise
the ego of Simon at this point cannot afford to let the first
Appearance of Christ be to anybody else. There is a further
reason. Apocryphal Peter is a second-century work. Celsus,
the great second-century opponent of Christianity, pours much
scorn on the belief in the Resurrection on the ground that it
originated in the fancy of a neurotic woman. There was an
apologetic reason for the omission.

Such cogency as the foregoing arguments possess is largely
dependent on the correctness of the analysis of the sources of
John essayed in a later chapter. And, even if the correctness
of that analysis be assumed, they fall far short of proof. Yet
the view that the earliest account of the Resurrection Appear-
ances has disappeared without leaving a trace is in itself so
improbable that I have thought it worth while to outline a
hypothesis which makes it possible to affirm the contrary, even
though from the nature of the evidence it can be no more than
an interesting speculation.

PART III

THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND ITS SOURCES

361

I see His blood upon the rose,

And in the stars the glory of His eyes ;
His body gleams amid eternal snows,

His tears fall from the skies.

T see His face in every flower ;
The thunder and the singing of the birds
Are but His voice—and carven by His power
Rocks are His written words.

All pathways by His feet are worn,
His strong heart stirs the ever-beating sea ;
His crown of thorns is twined with every thorn,
His cross is every tree.

From
“The Complete Poetical Works of J. M. Plunkett.’
By permission of The Talbot Press, Dublin.

362

XI
JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET
SYNOPSIS

Mysticism, GREEK AND HEBREW

The Fourth Gospel should not be classed among works definitely
historical in intention ; it belongs rather to the Library of Devotion.
The author is a Christocentric mystic conscious of prophetic inspira-
tion. In him are combined the religious experience of the Hebrew
prophet and the philosophic mysticism of the school of Plato.

Tur Discourses oF JOHN

The contrast between the Jewish practice of preserving the
upsissima verba of Wise Men and Rabbis and the Greek literary
tradition by which an author put into the mouths of historical
characters speeches of his own composition.

The Synoptics reflect the Jewish practice ; John’s method is akin
to the Greek, but with the significant difference that the author
regarded himself as a prophet inspired by the Spirit of Jesus, and
therefore considered the discourses as the utterances of that Spirit
and not as his own individual composition.

Tur Logos

Probably both the Philonic conception of the Logos and also the
paraphrastic expression “the Memra,” found in the later Aramaic
Targums, were known to the author; but, since his purpose was to
interpret Christianity to the Greek world, his conception is more
nearly related to that of Philo.

Tue QueEsT FOR SOURCES

The ordinary methods of source-criticism cannot be applied to
363

364 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. Or

this Gospel; so much so that most of the “ Partition Theories δ
recently propounded may be ruled out at once.

(1) Analogies drawn from Old Testament criticism are not
applicable, nor even those supported by the critical study of the
Synoptics. Illustration of this.

(2) A further caution suggested by the psychology of authorship.

(8) Certain cases of lack of connection between psragrsphs, which
might seem evidence of a fusion of written sources, are better
explained by the theory of accidental disarrangements in an early MS.

Creativs Memory

The crestive activity of the subconscious mind has always 8
dramatic quality; this especially true of the mystic or the artistic
temperament. In such cases memory tends to enhance detail along
the line of the special interest of the individual.

In antiquity this tendency was not checked by the training in
accuracy emphasised in modern education, with its stress on the
scientific value of correctness of observation. Illustrations of this.

Fact anp Sympon

The effort to discover an eternal meaning behind the veil of
historic fact might well lead to modifications of detail in Joha’s
description of events; but the free invention of incidents would
be quite another matter.

The Church in Asia was fighting s battle on two fron’
the Gnostics, who tended to dissolve the historical into symbol and
myth, and against the Judaisers, who could not rise beyond an
Adoptionist Christology conceived of in terms of apocalyptic picture-
thinking. The via media which John champions centres round the
conception of the Word made flesh. From this conception it seems
to follow (1) that fact as fact is of value, but (2) that it is as an

“ acted parable " bodying forth some lesson of eternal moment.

Hence it is probable that stories like the raising of Lazarus came
to the author in some document or oral tradition which, nightly or
wrongly, he believed to be historical.

Tus Mystic Vision

The possibility that certain of the scenes described had been
seen by the author in the mystic trance. If so, the allegorical ele-
ment in them is perhaps to be accounted for by the psychology of
dream symbolism. A suggestion of Evelyn Underhill, based on
analogies from Mediaeval Mystics.

CHAPTER XIII
JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET

Mysticism, GREEK AND HEBREW

THE Gospels were written in the great age of Classical Biography ;
Luke, the most cultivated of the Synoptics, differs hardly at all,
either in his conception of the purpose of biography as pre-
dominantly didactic or in his literary methods, from his famous
contemporaries, Plutarch and Tacitus. The difference lies in
the subject treated, not in the historical ideal of the several
writers. The other two Synoptists—Mark in his unstudied style,
Matthew in his more overt expression of an apologetic and
practical intention—depart a little, but not strikingly, from the
literary model of the day. But the Fourth Gospel stands apart.
It does not purport to be a Life of Christ. Avowedly it is a
selection, for a special purpose. ‘‘ Many other signs therefore
did Jesus . . . which are not written in this book: but these
are written, that ye may believe . . . and that believing ye may
have life in his name” (Jn. xx. 30 f.).

Tf, then, we are asked to what class of literature the Fourth
Gospel should be referred, we reply that it belongs neither to
History nor Biography, but to the Library of Devotion. It will
be misunderstood unless it is approached in a spirit comparable
to that in which we approach the Confessions of Augustine or
the Imitation of ἃ Kempis. We must read it, as we read the book
of Job, with our attention fixed less on the events recorded or
on the characters of the dialogue than on the profundities of

thought which through them are dramatically bodied forth.
365

366 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1Π

This Gospel is a meditation, an inspired meditation, on the Life
of Christ. It is the work of one whom one cannot call philosopher,
because he is a mystic who feels that he has got beyond philosophy
—like Plotinus when he had seen the beatific vision, or like
Aquinas, who, when nearing the end of his Summa, hung up his
inkhorn and pen, saying, “‘ What I have seen so transcends what
I have written I will write no more.”

The starting-point for any profitable study of the Fourth
Gospel is the recognition of the author as a mystic—perhaps the
greatest of all mystics. To him the temporal is the veil of the
eternal, and he is ever, to use von Hiigel’s phrase, “ striving to
contemplate history sub specie aeternitatis and to englobe the
successiveness of man in the simultaneity of God.” 1 But, if
this is so, it follows that any inquiry into the sources of the
Fourth Gospel will be futile which does not approach the subject
from the standpoint of the psychology of the mystic temper.

The title “mystic” has dubious associations ; it has been used
to cover a very large variety of experiences. It is often employed
to give an imposing sound to childish speculations, or to practices
which in the last resort are merely tricks of narcotic self-bemuse-
ment. In a nobler sense the word is used of the religious side of
the philosophic tradition dominant in Hellenic thought, seen at
its highest in Plato and Plotinus. The mysticism of John is
nearer akin to this, but it is not the same. His mysticism, like
that of Paul, is a mysticism centred, not on Absolute Being, but
on the Divine Christ. The character of the mystic aspiration
is necessarily affected by the conception entertained of the nature
of the object towards which it is directed. The passion for
union with the One becomes qualitatively different if that One
is conceived of in the likeness of the historic Jesus. And just
in so far as the object is visualised by John as concretely personal,
the religious experience which is its correlate is continuous, rather

1 Cf. Encyclopedia Britannica, art. “ John, Gospel of ’’—one of the most
important discussions of the problem of the Fourth Gospel to be found in
English,

cH, ΧΙ JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET >) 867

with the Old Testament, than with the Platonic, apprehension of
the reaction of the soul to the Divine.

The author of the Fourth Gospel stands between two worlds,
the Hebrew and the Greek, at the confluence of the two greatest
spiritual and intellectual traditions of our race. In him Plato
and Isaiah meet. To call John a mystic is only correct so long
as one remembers that in the Hebrew tradition the prophet is
the counterpart of him whom elsewhere we style the mystic. The
religious experience of the prophet is not quite the same as that
of the mystic, though closely allied. We shall misapprehend
both the psychology and the message of John if we forget that
he is a Jew first, and never quite a Greek, and unless we relate
the experience of which his Gospel is the record with that revival
of prophecy which is the conspicuous feature of the Early Church.

The higher religion of the Old Testament was, humanly
speaking, due to a long line of outstanding prophets. After the
Captivity, the Law—which, as modern studies of the Old Testa-
ment have shown, was in its present form the work of priests and
scribes building on the basis of the ethical monotheism of the
great prophets—came more and more into prominence. The idea
grew up that the succession of prophets had come to an end and
that no new revelation of God was to be expected. The claim
of John the Baptist to prophetic inspiration broke a silence
which had lasted for more than three hundred years. But once
the tradition that direct revelation had ceased was broken,
prophecy as a living contemporary institution resumed its ancient
importance and prestige, within—not outside—the Christian
community. Prophets are ranked by Paul with Apostles as the
foremost spiritual leaders of the Church,! and we have frequent
allusion to them elsewhere in the New Testament. The essence
of prophecy was the claim to direct inspiration. The prophet
regarded himself, and was regarded by others, as the mouth-
piece of a Divine communication sent through him to the com-
munity. Sometimes this took the form of a premonition of

1 Cf, 1 Cor. xii. 28.

368 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

some future event; more frequently it consisted in some message
of moral or religious exhortation. Modern historical and psycho-
logical investigation would suggest that both the language and
thought of the prophet were modified, not only by his individual
personal idiosyncrasy, but by the system of ideas prevalent in
the community of his time and by the extent to which he had
meditated on the problems with which he deals. But the
prophet himself was unaware of these conditions. All he felt
was that, whereas on ordinary occasions he was on the same level
as common men, there were special times when he became the
vehicle of a direct communication from God. But there was
this difference between prophecy in Old and New Testament
times. The Old Testament prophet said, “Thus saith the
Lord ” ; he believed that his message was from the ancient God
of Israel. The New Testament prophet felt that he was in con-
tact with the “ Spirit,” which he seems to have thought of more
often as the “ Spirit of Jesus ” than as the “ Spirit of God.”

Paul lays claim to such direct inspiration, though not, be it
noted, for all his utterances (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 10); so, even more
emphatically, does the author of the Apocalypse,! c. a.p. 95.
The warnings against false prophets in the First Epistle of John
and in the Didache are additional evidence of the immense
prestige enjoyed by a true prophet; while the way in which
Ignatius of Antioch, ὁ. A.D. 115, appeals to utterances made by
himself when inspired by the Spirit,? shows that the belief that
the age of direct revelation was not yet over was still powerful
in the most orthodox circles. To ignore the phenomenon of pro-
phecy is to study the Fourth Gospel apart from its environment.
And, for myself, I must say that the more often I read the dis-
courses of the Fourth Gospel the more it is borne in upon me
that its author was regarded, by himself, and by the Church for
which he wrote, as an inspired prophet.

1 Cf. Rev. i. 1; xxii. 18-19. ® Trall. 5; Philad. 7.

oH. XII JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 369

Tue DIscouRSES OF JOHN

With this provisional assumption in mind, I proceed to raise
the question, In what sense are the discourses ascribed to Jesus
in the Fourth Gospel intended to be taken as historical? I
venture to think that the answers given to this question both by
the old-fashioned traditionalist and by most modern critical
scholars are alike on certain points unsatisfactory.

In the ancient world there were two entirely different tradi-
tions in regard to the reporting of the discourses of historical
personages or accepted teachers—the Jewish and the Greek.

The Jewish tradition had developed as a result of the
existence of a class of “ wise men” in the ancient Hebrew com-
munity. Epigrammatic sayings of these worthies were carefully
preserved, as nearly as possible in their original form. In books
like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Wisdom we trace a new type of
literature gradually developing out of the practice of making
collections of such proverbial sayings. Originally most of the
sayings seem to have been preserved without the name of the
author. The Book of Ecclesiasticus breaks this tradition of
anonymity ; although, even in this case, the innovation was not
made by the author of the sayings himself, Jesus the son of
Sirach, but by his grandson, who published the collection some-
where about 130B.c. From this period onwards, more and more
of the epigrammatic sayings of Jewish Rabbis came to be pre-
served with the author’s name attached. It is to the continu-
ance, in the preponderantly Jewish communities in the Early
Church, of this Jewish practice of preserving as far as possible
the exact words of the teacher that we owe the different collec-
tions of sayings of Christ which are preserved to us in the
Synoptic Gospels.

The Greek tradition was quite different, not only in regard to
the public speeches attributed to historical personages, but also
as to the private teaching of the philosophers, who occupied in the
Greek social and educational system a position not at all unlike

370 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

that of the “ wise men” or later Rabbis in the Jewish. Thucydides,
the most conscientious of all Greek historians, explains in a
famous passage that he has been at the greatest pains carefully
to ascertain and accurately to record all matters of fact, but that
where he professes to give a speech delivered on any historical
occasion, he has as a rule put into the mouths of the characters
the sentiments which seemed to him to be proper to the occasion.
Similarly Plato, who felt that he owed everything to the teach-
ing of Socrates, never, so far as we are aware, made any attempt
to hand down to posterity the ipsisstma verba of his master.
But throughout his life, and it was a long one, he wrote a series
of philosophical dialogues in which Socrates is represented as
carrying on philosophical discussions either with ordinary citizens
inquiring after knowledge or with the defenders of philosophical
systems of which Plato disapproved. All through the series the
views which Socrates is represented as expounding are those
which Plato himself, at the date of writing a particular dialogue,
had come to entertain. Plato attributed his whole philosophical
system to the original inspiration of Socrates ; and it is probable
that in the éarlier dialogues the speeches of Socrates, though
written in the style and language of Plato, do not inadequately
represent opinions entertained by Socrates. But in the later
dialogues Plato had developed his system far beyond anything
which is at all likely to have been in the mind of the historic
Socrates.

John was writing in the Greek city of Ephesus, and for a
Church of which the more cultivated, if not the majority, of the
members had been educated in Greek schools and on Greek
literature. Even Jewish Christians there would be familiar with
the Greek tradition in these matters. Realising this, we perceive
that the original readers of the Fourth Gospel would never have
supposed that the author intended the speeches put into the mouth
of Christ to be taken as a verbatim report, or even as a précis, of
the actual words spoken by Him on the particular occasions on

1 Cf. Thucydides i. 22.

EE eee

CH. XIII JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 371

which they are represented as having been delivered. They
would not have supposed that the author meant that the
doctrine propounded in these discourses was verbally identical
with what was actually taught by Christ in Palestine, but rather
that it was organically related to what Christ taught in such
a way as to be the doctrine which Christ would have taught
had he been explicitly dealing with the problems confronting
the Church at the time the Gospel was written.

In a sense the Discourses of John are an attempt to supply
a systematic summary of Christian teaching. We must never
forget that the Ephesian Church about a.p. 90 was not in
possession of our New Testament. Mark had been in existence
perhaps five-and-twenty years, and by the time John wrote
would have been firmly established in the Church of Ephesus.
Luke was a more recent arrival, and it is possible that Matthew
had not yet reached Ephesus (p. 416). The portion of the New
Testament upon which the older members of that Church had
been brought up was Mark and the Epistles of Paul, their founder.
But Mark is conspicuously lacking on the side of teaching.
Thus, while to us the Four Gospels, to them the ten Epistles of
the Apostle, must have been the main authority for the “‘ essence
of Christianity.” The discourses of the Fourth Gospel are
intended, in combination with the selected narrative, to present
the ‘“‘essence of Christianity.” Naturally they present the
thinking of Jesus as organically related to the thought of Paul.
Paul is the first that we know of the mystics whose mysticism
is centred on Christ.1_ John, too, is a Christocentric mystic. But
he had lived longer and meditated more than Paul, and is thus
able to give a simpler, clearer, and in a sense a calmer, expression
to his creed.

Are we, then, to say that the Discourses in the Fourth Gospel
are to be conceived of as on exactly the same level as the Melian
Dialogue of Thucydides, or the speeches in the Republic of Plato ?
Far from it. In this, as in other ways, John stands at the ©

1 Cf. A. Deissmann, St. Paul, E.T. p. 132 f. (Hodder and Stoughton, 1912).

912 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

meeting-point of Greek and Hebrew tradition. The analogies
with Greek literary methods are valuable mainly in enabling us
to understand how an author who valued historical accuracy,
even though his purpose was not mainly historical, could, in all
good faith and without any risk of being misunderstood by his
readers, set down as spoken on definite particular occasions
speeches which he knew quite well were not so delivered. But
beyond that the analogy breaks down. First of all, a man of the
temperament of the author of the Gospel must have meditated
year after year, not only on the Epistles of Paul, but on certain
Logia of Christ which had come home to him as being of special
and profound significance. He appears to have a tradition of
events independent of the Synoptics; it would be strange if
this did not include some sayings as well. But what he gives us
is not the saying as it came to him, but the saying along with an
attempt to bring out all the fullness of meaning which years of
meditation had found in it. It is not difficult, for example, to
detect in the Johannine allegories of the Door, the Good Shepherd,
and the Vine, interpretative transformations of what were origin-
ally parables of the Synoptic type. Epigrammatic Logia will
have been modified in a similar way. But behind and beyond
this, we must, I feel, look to that experience of possession by the
Spirit which is the New Testament counterpart of Old Testament
prophecy.

There is no incompatibility between a conscious choice of the
medium of literary expression and the conviction that the thing
expressed has come through some superhuman channel. The
poet Blake in one passage speaks of a poem as given him by an
angel, and then proceeds to give the reason for his choice of a
particular metre. And, viewed as the utterances of a prophet
edited by him in accord with Greek tradition, the discourses
ascribed by John to Jesus take on a significance completely
different from that of the speeches put into the mouths of his
characters by the ordinary Greek historian. John knows that
they are interpretations of the essentials of Christianity rather

OH. XII JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 373

than ipsissima verba of the historic Jesus ; but they have come to
him through direct inspiration from the risen Christ Himself.
That is why he insists ‘‘ The Spirit shall lead you into all truth.”
John knows quite well that his theology is a development of the
original Apostolic teaching, but it is a development directly
inspired by the Spirit. It is Christ Himself, speaking “in the
Spirit,” who says “I have many things to tell you but ye cannot
bear them now.” It is thus He fulfils the promise, ‘‘ The Para-
clete, when he cometh, he shall take of mine, he shall glorify me.”
“ Glorify me” can only mean “lead you to perceive the truth
that I am the Incarnation of the Word.” John had reached this
conclusion ; but he believed that he had reached it, not by his own
intellectual efforts, but by direct revelation of the Spirit of Jesus.

The author of the Gospel claims that his interpretation of the
Person and Work of Christ is a revelation of the Spirit. That
claim must be set side by side with that of the Old Testament
prophets that their message was in the same way derived direct
from God. At once we are brought up against philosophical and
psychological problems of the greatest moment. What is the
validity of religious experience? Does the Divine Personality
“‘ communicate ” facts and ideas to the human recipient, or does
it rather act, like the contact of one inspiring human personality
upon others, by stimulating in them insight and capacity beyond
their normal selves, yet along the line of their own individuality
and within the range of the culture of their age? What is the
relation of conscious thought and purposive endeavour to those
subconscious processes of the mind from which an author’s
“happy thought,” or the flash of discovery of the scientist, seems
to arise? What is the connection between phenomena like these
and voices or visions of the prophet?! The subject is one to
which I hope to return at some future time. To discuss it here
would take us beyond the field of the purely historical and
critical investigation which is all this book professes to attempt.

1 Cf. the Essays by C. W. Emmet on “ The Psychology of Grace” and
“Inspiration” in The Spirit, ed. B. H. Streeter (Macmillan, 1921).

374 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 11

In this place, all I desire to emphasise is that the discourses of the
Fourth Gospel and the prophetic writings of the Old Testament
cannot be considered apart from one another. There is food for
reflection in the fact that the original starting-point of the move-
ment towards ethical monotheism in the Old Testament, and
also the most complete expression reached in the New of the
idea that in Christ God is in man made manifest, both ultimately
derive from a conviction of direct inspiration, which to prophet
or evangelist himself did not appear to be an open question.

Tur Logos

The interpretative fusion of Greek philosophic mysticism with
the conception of a Personal God reached by the Hebrew Prophets,
modified by the religious experience of the Karly Church, obtained
its classical expression in the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel.

There has been much discussion as to the conception of
the Word with which the Gospel opens. Was it derived by
the author from the “ Logos” of Philo, the philosophic Jew of
Alexandria, or from the use of the expression, the ‘“‘ Memra ” or
“Word ” of the Lord, in the popular Aramaic paraphrases of the
Old Testament known as Targums? The controversy has always
seemed to me to be a curiously futile one, since it is extremely
unlikely that John could have been ignorant of either.

In Philo’s system the term God stood, roughly speaking, for
the idea of Divine Transcendence, while by the Logos or Word of
God he meant something rather like what nowadays would be
spoken of as Divine Immanence. His choice of Logos (expressed
thought, or word) instead of Nous (reason) or Sophia (wisdom)
was no doubt mainly determined by the use of the phrase “ God
said ” in the description of the act of creation in Genesis, and by
the way in which in poetical passages in the Old Testament the
“ word of the Lord ” is at times all but personified. The use of
the term Memra in the Targums was developed out of these same
texts in the Old Testament, and it is quite likely that Philo was

cH, XIII JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 375

familiar with it in the oral paraphrases which later on came to be
written down in the Targums. If so, that would be an additional
reason for his preferring the word Logos, which was a possible
equivalent in Greek.1

All the same, the underlying intention of the usage in Philo
and the Targums is absolutely different. Philo is working out a
philosophical system designed to effect a synthesis between
two great monotheisms—the religious tradition of the Hebrews
and Greek Neoplatonism. The Targums are popular renderings
of the Old Testament lessons intended for congregations the
majority of whom knew neither Hebrew nor Greek, but were
sufficiently advanced to find difficulty in the more startlingly
anthropomorphic expressions of the Old Testament like “ the
Lord God walked in the garden.” Wherever anything of this
kind occurs in the original, the Targum replaces it by some
inoffensive substitute ; the “ Dwelling of the Lord” (Shekinta =
Heb. Shekinah) or the “ Word of the Lord” (Memra) are the
mostcommon. But as Professor Moore of Harvard * has recently
shown, these are merely reverential paraphrases ; the expression
the “ Word,” or the “ Dwelling,” is not meant to be in any sense a
metaphysical or theological conception, it is a purely philological
subterfuge—a kind of verbal smoke-screen to conceal the difficulty
presented by the anthropomorphic language of the original. To
Philo, on the other hand, the Logos is the name of a Divine
Principle conceived of, along the lines of Greek philosophical
thinking, as a connecting link between Transcendent Deity and
the material universe.

It is often pointed out that John’s conception of the Word is
quite different from Philo’s. Of course that follows the moment
it is said, “‘ the Word was made flesh.” It would be equally true
to say that Paul’s conception of the meaning of Messiah is entirels
different from that in the Old Testament or in contemporary

1 ῥῆμα would be a more exact equivalent of Memra, but would be rejected
as in no way connoting the idea of “‘ reason.”
2 Harvard Theological Journal, January 1922, p. 41 ff.

376 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

Jewish thought. Once you say that the Jesus who died on the
Cross is Messiah, that word takes on a meaning radically different
from what it bore to the ordinary Jew. But no one on that score
labours to prove that Paul derived the conception “ Christ ”
from some other source than the Old Testament. Philo wrote
fifty years at least before John. He and his family were famous
throughout the Jewish world. His brother had covered the
gate of the Temple with gold; he himself had been chosen to lead
a deputation of Jews that waited on the Emperor Caligula, at
the most dangerous crisis that had ever yet occurred in the
relations between Roman and Jew. John may not have actually
read anything of Philo—there are many to-day who talk, and
even write, about Evolution without having read Darwin, or
about an élan vital or Life-Force without having opened a book
of Bergson. It is not, I believe, quite certain that the Memra
usage was earlier than John. But if it was, John was prob-
ably familiar with it, and may even on that account have been
the more attracted to Philonic thought. But the essential con-
sideration is that the Word in John is philosophically conceived ;
it expresses the idea of the Divine as an indwelling principle in the
Universe. And it was Philo who had popularised the term in that
sense in an attempted synthesis of Greek and Hebrew thought.
Seeing that the whole of Christian theology is based on the inter-
pretation of the Logos doctrine of John as being a conception of
philosophical import, it has always been a matter of no little
surprise to me that defenders of orthodoxy, of all people, should
be so anxious to find its ancestry, not in a conception of Philo,
which (whatever its ultimate value) is at least a noble effort at
clear thinking about God and His relation to the world, but in a
Rabbinic paraphrase which is at best a rather childish attempt
to dodge the necessity of thought.

I am far from asserting—indeed the contrary is probable—
that the author of the Gospel was either unfamiliar with, or
uninfluenced by, Rabbinic interpretations. What I do say is
that to ignore or minimise the Hellenic element in the Logos

cH. XII JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 377

doctrine of John is to miss the point of the whole Gospel. For the
same reason the suggestion—negligible were it not backed by the
great name of Harnack—that the Prologue is a mere accessory
or afterthought is one that I cannot entertain fora moment. I
cannot but think that Harnack has unconsciously allowed his
historical judgement to be warped by his own philosophical pro-
clivities. The neo-Kantian reaction in Germany begot the idea
that to seek a metaphysical basis for religion is to plough the
sand. This may be true or false—personally I think it false ;
but it is beyond dispute that it is the precise opposite of the
conviction of the Greek world for whom the author of the
Gospel wrote.

THE QUEsT FOR SoURVES

Much the larger part of the Fourth Gospel consists in dis-
course. And many of the incidents—the visit of Nicodemus, for
example—are merely a peg on which to hang discourse. This
fact alone should have warned critics against the naive attempt
to apply to this Gospel methods of source-criticism which are
appropriate to the Synoptics or the historical books of the Old
Testament.

Dr. Stanton? is at pains to discuss various “‘ partition theories”
which aim at getting behind the present text of the Fourth
Gospel to earlier documents supposed to have been used by the
author. I confess I think he pays them the compliment of a
more serious consideration than is properly their due. Some of
them are so intricate that merely to state is to refute them. For
if the sources have undergone anything like the amount of ampli-
fication, excision, rearrangement and adaptation which the theory
postulates, then the critic’s pretence that he can unravel the
process is grotesque. As well hope to start with a string of
sausages and reconstruct the pig. But even the more sober
seeming of these partition theories appear to me to be based on
a method essentially unscientific, for three reasons.

1 The Gospels as Historical Documents, part iii. p. 32 ff. (Cambridge, 1920).

378 THE FOUR GOSPELS PY. ΠῚ

(1) The analogies and methods of Old Testament Criticism
cannot be transferred to the New without considerable qualifica-
tion. In the Pentateuch the main documents are removed from
one another by a period centuries in duration, during which the
whole social, religious, and political outlook of the people and the
very language they used were profoundly changed ; and these
changes are clearly reflected in the different sources used by the
compiler. Again, the literary aim of each several document is
quite different. J E is a national Epic, D a book of state legis-
lation, P is a historically framed manual of Church Law. Yet
again, the method of the compiler is what we should style
“scissors and paste’; probably of set purpose, he refrains in
general from any attempt at rewriting the original. Thus even
when the Synoptic Gospels only are concerned, Old Testament
analogies do not hold. In Mark we have extant one of the main
sources of both Matthew and Luke. But if we had before us
only Matthew, or only Luke, no critic on earth would have been
able to reconstruct a source like Mark. Even where we have two
copies of a lost document to help us, we are at times baffled ;
witness the fact that no one has yet made a convincing recon-
struction of Q.

But John’s method is much further removed from that of
Matthew or Luke than theirs is from that of the editor of Genesis.
An example will make this clear. Mark (xiv. 3 ff.) tells how in
the house of Simon the leper at Bethany a woman unnamed
anointed our Lord’s head. Luke mentions an anointing of our
Lord’s feet in the house of Simon the Pharisee by a woman wn-
named in Galilee ; in another context he tells the story of Martha
cumbered with much serving and her sister Mary in a certain
village. Now in John all these names, places, actions are, so to
speak, sorted out and re-combined. The “certain village” is
identified as Bethany ; the house of the anointing is that of Mary,
Martha and Lazarus; the unnamed woman is Mary. Thus the
place of the anointing (Bethany) is Mark’s, the mode of it (feet not
head) is Luke’s, while the serving of Martha is alluded to in

OH. XIII JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 379

another context, but in connection with the Lazarus whom John
represents to be her brother. Now these facts are susceptible
of more than one interpretation. We may either suppose that
John knew all about the family of Bethany, and that therefore his
account of the Anointing and of the family of Lazarus gives the
tradition approximately in its original form, while the stories given
by Mark and Luke in different contexts and in diverse versions
are, as it were, dislocated fragments of the true account. In
that case John did not use a written source at all. Or, on the
other hand, we may take the view that the Johannine version has
been reached as the result of a fusion of traditions which are
preserved separately, and in a more original form, in Mark and
Luke. But, supposing Mark or Luke had not been before us,
where is the critic with an insight so magical that he would even
have suspected that a critical problem of this complexity is
involved the moment we ask the source of the simple vivid story
of the Anointing as it is told in John ?

(2) Exponents of source criticism, in this and other fields,
have not always, I think, sufficiently considered the psychology
of authorship. They have an eagle eye for the slightest ten-
dency towards unnecessary repetition, a digression that could
be dispensed with, or a qualification of a previous statement,
an obscurity of connection between paragraphs, the slightest
inconsistency, real or apparent, in thought or expression; and
if they detect anything of the sort in the smallest degree, it is
evidence of interpolation, excision, or of a suture with another
source. But has anyone ever written anything of which the
first draft was not full of this kind of thing? and how many
have published work from which such blemishes have been
completely eliminated? The fact is that the human mind is
not naturally tidy. Intellect, at least so Bergson would have
us believe, was developed through natural selection, in order
to enable man to stone rabbits, not to deploy philosophic argu-
ments. It is only as a result of long training and much effort
that most of us can think coherently, still less convey a train

380 THE FOUR GOSPELS pr. ΠῚ

of thought to other minds. Only by the few, and by these
as a rule only after a process of careful revision, can a perfect
articulation of thought and expression be reached. The author
of the Fourth Gospel was a genius. We may presume, then,
that he thought more consistently, and could express himself
more clearly, than other men. But very likely he dictated
his book, and that amidst many interruptions. What is most
unlikely is that he would have cared to spend time on that
“Jabour of the file”? which is the sole method of perfecting a
literary exposition. He did not know that he was writing, he
did not aim at writing, a book that would outlast the centuries.
He wrote to proclaim a Gospel. His passion was not to produce
good literature, but to save souls; also he was an old man and
maybe he wrote in haste.

(3) The only instances in this Gospel where the lack of
sequence of thought between one paragraph and another is in
the slightest degree remarkable can be explained in a way
which is far more satisfactory than the hypothesis of clumsy
editing. Everyone who has ever sent manuscript to be copied
on a large scale knows that, either through his own inadvertence
or that of the copyist, sheets often get transposed, and para-
graphs added by way of correction get inserted in the wrong
place. The same kind of thing is frequently to be observed
in ancient MSS. of classical authors;1 and there is not the
slightest improbability in its having happened in one of the
earliest, or even in the earliest, copy of this Gospel. At any rate
there are certain places where the connection is immensely
improved if we suppose there has been an accidental trans-
position of paragraphs or sections. Thus it is difficult to believe
that Jn. xiv. 25-31, which reads like a concluding summary,

1 The most remarkable is the series of dislocations in the Commentary of the
Pseudo-Asconius, where the original order can be securely reconstructed from
the order of the text of Cicero, upon which he comments. These dislocations
go far beyond anything that the wildest critic has ever suggested in regard to
the Fourth Gospel. Cf. A. C. Clark, The Descent of Manuscripts, p. 374 ff,

There is a very interesting discussion by F. W. Lewis, Disarrangements in
the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1910 ; cf. also Moffatt, Introd. Ν.Τ'. p. 552 ff.

CH, XIII JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 381

leading up to the words “ Arise, let us depart hence,” was
intended by the author to be followed by chap. xv.-xvi. But
move these seven verses to the end of chap. xvi., and they make
a magnificent close to the discourse, xiv. 1-24, xv., xvi. Again,
vii. 15-24 would follow excellently on v. 47; while vii. 25 would
follow more naturally the thought of vii. 14. Yet again, as
was long ago pointed out, to transpose ch. v. and vi. would
much simplify the sequence of events. Thus from Cana, where He
is at iv. 54, Jesus proceeds (vi. 1) to cross the Sea of Galilee at
a time defined (vi. 4) as shortly before “ the Passover, the feast
of the Jews.” After feeding the multitude He recrosses the
lake to Capernaum (vi. 17) and discourses in the synagogue
there (vi. 59); then (v. 1) He goes to Jerusalem to a feast
unnamed, which has been a standing puzzle to commentators,
but which (the chapters being thus transposed) is seen to be a
reference to the Passover already mentioned (vi. 4) as at hand.
The visit leads to a breach with the Jews of Jerusalem, ending
with His denunciation of them (v. 44-47).!_ This is naturally
followed by vii. 1: “after this Jesus walked in Galilee: for he
would not walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill him.”
If the author of the Gospel wrote on a series of waxed tablets,
or if he dictated to someone using a number of papyrus slips,
such disarrangements could easily occur; and since the extant
order does make sense, the disarrangement might not be noticed.

There is one rearrangement of the text of John which is
especially interesting as having actual support in an existing
MS. In Syr. S. the order of the verses in Jn. xviii. 12-27 is
modified in a way which much improves the sense.” Verse 24
is inserted between 12 and 13, so that there is no trial before
Annas, but merely a halt at his house on the way to that of
Caiaphas. A mystic significance is attached in this Gospel to

1 Or with vii. 15-25, if the additional transposition suggested above be
effected.

2 On the question whether the lost leaf of e supported Syr. S., cf. C. H.

Turner, J.7.8., Oct. 1900, p. 141 f., and F. C. Burkitt, Hv. Da-Mepharreshe,
ii. p. 316,

382 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. II

Caiaphas being “high priest that year” (xi. 49-52), and the
fact is re-emphasised again in this very context (xviil. 13-14) ;
this makes it very hard to make the high priest in xvui. 19
refer to Annas—whatever claims he may have had, as a matter
of usage, to bear the title. But in the text of Syr. S. the diffi-
culty disappears; the high priest who conducts the trial is
Caiaphas. Verses 16-18 are also transposed in this MS. so as
to follow verse 23 (25a, which is a repetition of 18b, being
omitted), so that the whole account of Peter’s Denial is given
in a single section.

It is possible that the Gospel, like the Aeneid of Virgil, was
published posthumously. The obscure remark attributed to
Papias in a [X°™* Latin MS.1 that “the Gospel of John was
revealed and given to the Church by John, adhuc in corpore
constituto, 1.e. while still in the body,’ may be one of those
“ official denials” which are evidence of a by no means ground-
less belief in the fact denied. If so, the author may have died,
leaving a pile of tablets or a number of loose dictated pieces
on sheets of papyrus, and a pupil may have arranged them as
best he could for publication. In that case there would be no
objection to our supposing a large number of disarrangements,
and also a few editorial additions—yv. 28-29, for example, which
reflects the Apocalyptic conception of an external judgement,
thus directly contradicting the tenor of the previous verses. The
Appendix, too, ch. xxi., may have been added by the pupil who
edited the work. With possibilities of this kind open, con-
siderations drawn from apparent breaks in the flow of argument
or narrative, were they twice as many or as striking as they
are, would not, to my mind, weigh for a moment against the
extraordinary impression of unity of style, temper, and outlook
in the Gospel as a whole. It is a book of which every chapter
reflects the genius and experience of a tremendous personality
—and all through the personality reflected is the same.

1 Printed in Lightfoot and Harmer, Apostolic Fathers, p. 524.

cH. XIII JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 383

CREATIVE Memory

And the personality reflected is not that of a man likely
to copy painfully other men’s writings. Every scene he depicts,
every discourse he relates—whencesoever originally derived—
is the distilled essence of something that has been pondered
upon and lived out in actual life until it has become of the very
texture of his soul. But the subconscious depths of the human
mind are never inactive, least of all so where thoughts or
incidents fraught with passionate interest are concerned. Things
disconnected are brought together, things dark become illumin-
ated. Given also a mystic with the creative imagination of the
artist—and no one without the artist’s mind could have drawn
the word pictures of the Fourth Gospel—old scenes will be
flashed up into recollection, with new but vivid details embodying
the altered emphasis caused by later meditation on the meaning
of the original experience.

We must also remember that the stories told by John are
avowedly selected to illustrate certain fundamental religious
principles. The presumption is a strong one that he has given
us the selection which he had found most effective for that
purpose, and had already used time after time in discussions
with individuals or in addresses to the Church. But whenever
any one tells and retells the same story to illustrate some special
point—whether the point be a jest, a trait of character of some
well-known individual, the magnificence of an exploit, or the
enormity of a crime—quite insensibly minor details of the story
get modified so as to throw into greater emphasis the main
point. The subconscious mind is more primitive than the
conscious ; it thinks in pictures ; it dramatises ; thus every time
a story is told, it is told more effectively. But that is always
at the expense of the minor accuracy which a cross-examining
counsel demands of a witness, and which a historical critic ought
to be aware cannot often be expected in an ancient document.
Indeed, it is only in modern times, and under the influence of

384 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

the demand for meticulous accuracy which modern science and
its methods have made insistent, that people have begun to
trouble at all about minutiae of description, so long as these
do not seriously affect the general impression. An illustration
of this relative indifference to minor details can be found in
the Acts. The Conversion of Paul is described no less than three
times! in that book. The second and third occasions occur in
speeches of Paul separated by only three chapters, and the con-
text shows that the difference cannot be explained by the theory
that the author is combining two parallel sources. Yet the exact
details as to what was seen and heard, and how much of it was
experienced by Paul only, and how much by his companions
as well, is differently related in each of the three accounts.

That tendency in John, to which attention is so often called,
towards an enhancement of detail in the miracle stories he
records is to be accounted for in this way. He writes, not with
the written document in front of him, but from the vivid re-
construction of the scene as, at the moment of writing, it stood
out before his own mind’s eye. I may perhaps be pardoned in
adducing a modern illustration—the point of which lies precisely
in the fact that the person who is the subject of the illustration
is notoriously a man of unimpeachable veracity, and was, at
the moment of speaking, engaged in emphasising the supreme
importance of historical fact and historical evidence. In the
peroration of a sermon preached some years ago by a distin-
guished ecclesiastic on the evidence for the Resurrection, there
occurred the words, “ And finally He appeared to 500 brethren
at once on a mountain in Galilee in broad daylight.” As a
correspondent of the Guardian newspaper, in which the sermon
was published, pointed out, this unqualified statement of fact
really involved two unconscious inferences : (1) the identification
of the appearance to 500 brethren mentioned by Paul in writing
to the Corinthians with the appearance to the eleven on a
mountain in Galilee recorded in Matthew, which, though not

1 Acts ix. 3 ff.; xxii. 6 ff.; xxvi. 12 ff.

ee a

cH. xm JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 385

uncommonly made in popular commentaries of the period, is
an artificial combination and one of very questionable validity ;
(2) the affirmation that the appearance took place in broad
daylight. This, though possibly quite correct, is unsupported
by any definite statement in the New Testament. The preacher
had quite unconsciously described the scene, not from the
original authorities, but from the vivid picture, a “ composite
photograph ” as it were, reconstructed by his own imagination
on the basis of contemporary apologetic.

Fact anp SymBou

To most of the mystics symbolism in one form or another
appeals. But from the first century a.p. till well after the
Renaissance the peculiar form of symbolism known as Allegory
had an attraction for some of the finest minds with which it is
difficult for the present age to sympathise. Much has been
made by recent scholarship of the idea that the author of the
Fourth Gospel was one of them. I quote again from the article
in the Encyclopaedia Britannica by Baron Εἰ. von Hiigel :

“ Philo had in his life of Moses allegorised the Pentateuchal
narratives so as to represent him as mediator, saviour, inter-
cessor of his people, the one great organ of revelation, and the
soul’s guide from the false lower world into the upper true one.
The Fourth Gospel is the noblest instance of this kind of literature,
of which the truth depends, not on the factual accuracy of the
symbolising appearances, but on the truth of the ideas and
experiences thus symbolised.”

I hesitate to differ from so high an authority on such a
point. Full allowance must, I concede, be made for the influence
on John’s mind of a strain so powerful in contemporary religious
thought. The desire to find in events an allegorical expression
of spiritual reality would inevitably act as a moulding influence
on those imaginative pictures in which the memories are stored.

Since memory is essentially interpretative, such a desire might
20

386 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. UI

easily determine the character and direction of the modification
the mental picture of events would undergo. But the suggestion
that John consciously and deliberately composed stories for the
sake of their allegorical meaning seems to me to go too far.
Such a proceeding on his part would, so it seems to me, be
incompatible with the objects which he had in view, so far as
we can estimate these by what we know of the circumstances
and special needs of the Church of his day.

The Church in Ephesus, and indeed the Church throughout
the world at the end of the first century a.D., was fighting a
battle on two fronts. On the one side there was the impinge-
ment of Gnosticism from without, with the even more dangerous
drift towards a gnosticising Christianity within. This threatened
to undermine both the monotheism and the ethical soundness of
the Hebrew and Apostolic religious tradition, and to substitute
a vague mysticism, based upon speculations about complicated
series of graded divinities, along with a belief in the inherent evil
of matter. This tendency was accompanied by an insistence
either that Christ was not really human—the Body which men
saw in Palestine being merely an appearance—or that the Divine
Christ was a separate Being from the man Jesus. On the other
side was the conservative Jewish party, ethically sound and
firmly monotheistic, but conceiving of the Person of Christ and
His relation both to God and man in terms derived from Jewish
eschatology—a naive form of “ picture-thinking”’ which must
somehow be transcended if Christianity was to mean anything
to the average Greek. The Gospel of Matthew stereotypes this
phase of Christian theology, or rather the more progressive wing
of it, at the stage which it had reached in Antioch about a.p. 85.
The Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, the surviving fragment of which
describes how the Divine Christ went back to Heaven leaving
the human Jesus to die upon the Cross, represents the more
conservative wing of the Gnostic tendency.

John saw clearly that the salvation of the Church lay in a
via media between these two tendencies, in the position which

cH. XI JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 387

he summed up in the idea of the Word made flesh. Christ was
truly, really, and completely man; but in Him is incarnate the
“ Word of God.” To John the Word means, roughly speaking,
what a modern thinker would speak of as Divinity considered as
immanent—that which is really God, not a subordinate emana-
tion from God. But of the two tendencies John is combating,
much the more alarming was that which came from the Gnostic ;
for the Zeitgeist was on that side. Orthodox Christians are so
preoccupied nowadays in asserting the Divinity of Christ that it
is easy to overlook the fact that in the early Gentile Church,
especially in Asia, it was the reality of His Humanity that most
needed emphasis. The age was obsessed by the problem of evil,
and the Gnostic solution, that evil arose because matter is
essentially and eternally bad, necessitated the rejection of the
belief that Divinity could possibly have worn a real body of
material flesh and blood. That is why, while John dwells far
more than the Synoptics on the miraculous power of Christ and
the all-seeing intelligence that knows all without needing to ask
questions or await information—the evidence of Divinity—he
also, to an extent unparalleled in the Synoptics, emphasises the
susceptibility of Christ to purely physical and simple human
experience. John alone records that Jesus was wearied with a
journey (iv. 6), wept for a friend (xi. 35), and in the agony of
death could say “1 thirst.”

Does it not follow that to the mind of a philosophic mystic
of that epoch a “ mediating theology ” would involve a double
attitude towards the historical facts of the life of Christ ?

On the one hand, seeing that every action of the historic Jesus
is an expression in time of the Universal Divine, it is much more
than a mere historical event. The visible fact must necessarily
in every case be a symbolic expression of an invisible spiritual
principle. If a multitude is fed with loaves and fishes, this is
not a mere event which once happened by the Lake of Galilee, it
is also symbolically the expression in time of the eternal verity
that man attains to the Life Divine by feeding spiritually upon

388 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. OI

Christ the Bread of Life. If Lazarus rises from the tomb, this
is not merely a wonderful miracle wrought on an individual, it
is also an individualised instance of the universal principle
that the Immanent Divinity revealed in Christ is eternally the
Resurrection and the Life of Man.

On the other hand, from the logic of his position, John is
no less bound to emphasise the idea that, because the Word
became flesh, therefore these things factually occurred. To the
Gnostic this world of fact was alien to the spiritual; it was a
world in which the Ultimate Divine had no part. John affirms
that the Word in becoming flesh demonstrated that this world of
concrete fact was the expression of, and was in the control of,
the same world-creating Spirit that appeared as a Redeemer
in Jesus Christ. It would seem to follow that John could not,
consistently with his purpose, have recorded as history any
incident which he did not himself believe to have actually
occurred.

History to all the ancients, except perhaps Thucydides and
Polybius, was a branch, not of science, but of letters. Effective
presentation was more valued than accuracy of detail. There is
hardly a battle in Livy described in a way which would work out
correctly on the actual ground—and yet war was the “ leading
industry ” of Rome. About minor details no one in those days
troubled ; what was asked for was the broad facts graphically
described. And so far as the broad facts are concerned I think
one must affirm that John recorded nothing which he did not
believe to be historical. It does not follow that his belief was
always justified. He records four stupendous miracles—the
Feeding of the Five Thousand, the Walking on the Water, the
Changing of Water into Wine, and the Raising of Lazarus. The
difficulties to the modern mind of supposing that such events
happened exactly and in all particulars as they are described by
the Evangelist is a point that needs no elaboration. All I would
insist on is that, from the point of view of intrinsic credibility,
all four stories stand upon exactly the same level. But two of

a “ὦ.

cH. XII JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 389

them could have been derived by John from Mark, a work
accepted in the Church at the time he wrote as an unimpeachable
historical authority. The obvious presumption, then, is that he
derived the other two from an authority which, whether mis-
takenly or otherwise, he regarded as no less authentic.

Some eminent critics hold that the raising of Lazarus in John
has been developed out of the concluding sentence in Luke’s
parable of Dives and Lazarus. This suggestion is one which has
never seemed to me particularly plausible. It will at least be
conceded that, on the surface, the two stories and the morals
drawn from them are very different. But even if it be granted
that a sentence in the parable is the germ out of which the story
of the miracle has grown, it is surely psychologically far easier to
suppose that the growth had already taken place during an inter-
mediate stage of oral tradition, rather than that the transforma-
tion was effected through a conscious manipulation by John of
the written text of Luke.

To sum up, John may have been mistaken about his facts,
but to him it is as important to emphasise the historical as to see
in the historical a symbol of the Eternal. But he was interested
in these stories, not so much because they were marvellous, as
because they seemed to him to embody eternal truth. To him
fact and meaning are related as flesh to spirit—the flesh is a
necessary vehicle, but it is spirit which really counts. The
familiar observation that in John the miracles are “acted
parables ” is absolutely correct ; only it does not go far enough.
To John the whole of the appearance in history of the Word
made Flesh is an acted parable—including the Death and
Resurrection. That being so, it is essential surely to his whole
theological position, whether against the Docetic Gnostics, who
denied the reality of Christ’s human body, or against the passion-
less Christ of Cerinthus, to affirm that the parable really was
acted out in the plane of material existence in this world of fact.

990 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. TI

Tur Mystic Vision

In reply to this contention it may be urged by some that the
symbolism manifest in some of the stories has an allegorical
appropriateness not to be accounted for by the normal working
on the author’s memory of the various unconscious processes I
have indicated. The five earlier husbands, for example, of the
Woman of Samaria (contrasted with the present husband not her
own) are said to symbolise the gods of the five nations planted
in that territory by the Assyrians! whom the Samaritans wor-
shipped before they accepted the God of the Jews. Again,
the number 153 in the miraculous Draught of Fishes is said to
represent the inclusion of all nations in the Church, since the
ancients believed that this was the total number of species
of fish. Personally I am not much attracted by these sugges-
tions; but what I am concerned to argue is that, while the
numbers and other such details may have been modified by
the search for allegory, the stories themselves were not in-
vented ab initio as allegories. The Draught of Fishes we
know was not so invented, since it occurs in Luke: is it not
probable that John found also ready to hand a story of a
meeting of Christ with a Samaritan woman, which no doubt
to some extent he rewrote ?

Even if it should be thought that some scenes in the Gospel
have no basis either in fact or in tradition, I would submit that
the hypothesis of conscious literary invention is still improbable.
An alternative explanation can be invoked which is far more
consonant with the psychology of the mystic’s mind. Evelyn
Underhill, quoting analogies from Mediaeval Mystics, hazarded
the suggestion that the author of the Fourth Gospel may not
only have heard (with the prophet’s inward ear) the discourses
he reports, but may have seen some of the events which he
depicts—in mystic trance. As this suggestion has not, I think,

1 2 Kings xvii. 24.

on. XIII JOHN, MYSTIC AND PROPHET 391

received from scholars the attention it deserves, I venture to
quote a significant passage.

Now, as the discourses in which the Divine Nature discloses itself
in its relation to man seem to reflect back to “ auditive ”’ experiences
on the part of the Evangelist, so these incidents—so sharp and
realistic in their detail, yet so transfigured by the writer’s point of
view—suggest to us that another form of automatic activity had its
part in the composition of his gospel. As we read them, we are
reminded again and again of those visionary scenes, formed from
traditional or historical materials, but enriched by the creative
imagination, the deep intuition of the seer, in which the fruit of the
mystic’s meditation takes an artistic or dramatic instead of a
rhetorical form. The lives of the later mystics show to us the
astonishing air of realism, the bewildering intermixture of history
with dream, which may be achieved in visionary experience of this
kind ; and which can hardly be understood save by those who realise
the creative power of the mystical imagination, the solidarity which
exists for the mystic’s consciousness between his intensely actual
present and the historical past of his faith. In his meditations, he
really lives again through the scenes which history has reported to
him; since they are ever-present realities in that Mind of God to
which his mind aspires. He has a personal interest in doing this, in
learning as it were the curve of the life of Christ ; for wta tua, via
nostra is his motto—-“ he that saith he abideth in Him ought himself
also so to walk even as He walked.” 4

Further, his vivid sense of actuality, the artistic powers which are
part of his psychic constitution, help to build up and elaborate the
picture of the events upon which he broods. He sees this picture, in
that strong light and with that sharp definition which is peculiar to
visionary states. He has not produced it by any voluntary process :
it surges up from his deeper mind, as do the concepts of the artist,
invading that field of consciousness which his state of meditation has
kept in a mood of tense yet passive receptivity. So real it is to him,
so authoritative, so independent of his deliberate efforts, that the
transition is easy from “‘ thus it must have been”’ to “ thus it was.” ὃ

A study of dream psychology and of visions recorded by
Mystics affords evidence that the solution of problems, on which
the mind has pondered long and deeply, does sometimes come in
the form of visions, the symbolism of which is quite as obvious

1 1 John ii. 6.
2 The Mystic Way, p. 285 ff. (Dent, 1913).

392 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

and as elaborate in detail as that of allegories worked out by
the conscious mind. And not infrequently these visions have a
certain quality which, both at the moment of experiencing them
and in subsequent reflection, compels conviction that they are
veridical—that is, that they are not dreams or guesses, but
revelations of actual fact.1 I am not, however, concerned to
argue that any scene or any detail in a scene came to John in
this way. All I would contend is that, if any incident in the
Gospel is recorded in a form which seems too like allegory to
be accounted for by the normal working of interpretative recol-
lection, there is an alternative to the hypothesis of conscious
allegory which is, to my mind, psychologically more credible.

From the various considerations I have adduced it would
seem clear that the hope that by critical analysis sufficiently
refined we can reconstruct sources used by John is chimerical.
It is, however, quite another matter to raise the broad question,
On what authority does John rely when he takes upon himself to
supplement, correct, or contradict the Synoptic story ? Had he
some august written source to which he could appeal, or was he
in a position to speak from personal knowledge ? If the latter,
was his authority that of an eye-witness, or that of one supposed
in some other way to have first-hand knowledge of the facts ?

It may be that a critical examination of the documentary
relations between John and the Synoptists will place us in posses-
sion of materials with the aid of which an answer to this question
can be given. At any rate, since such an examination is likely
to bring out facts in other ways of interest to the student of the
Gospels, it must be essayed.

1 1 have put together some evidence bearing on this subject in an article,

originally intended as an excursus to this volume, which is to appear in the
Hibbert Journal for January 1925.

XIV
SYNOPSIS
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS

JOHN’s KNOWLEDGE OF THE SYNOPTICS

The traditional view that John was familiar with the first three
Gospels has recently been challenged. His knowledge of Mark is
strongly affirmed by recent critics, but his knowledge of Luke, and
still more of Matthew, is questioned. On this view the Fourth Gospel
enters the series of relations ordinarily studied under the title
Synoptic Problem ; but the case is not proved.

JOHN AND Marx

A survey of the evidence that John used Mark, and either attri-
buted greater authority to, or was more familiar with, his story than
that of either of the others.

This conclusion would seem to preclude the theory that John was
written in Aramaic; but it in no way weakens the case for the view
that he naturally thought in that language.

JOHN AND LUKE

The case for John’s knowledge of Luke depends mainly on the
way in which he introduces, and the details which he connects with,
the names of Martha and Mary. But the probability is also high
that John knew Luke’s Passion story. John’s interest in identifying
persons and places mentioned by Mark and Luke.

Was the source used by John, Luke, or Proto-Luke ?

JOHN AND MatTrHEWw

The points of contact between John and Matthew are extremely
minute, and a closer study suggests that many of them, like the
Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, are
either (a) deceptive agreements, or (b) due to scribal alterations of
text.

393

394 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

From Apocalypse and Papias fragment we infer Matthew had
reached Ephesus; but John, whose own theology was largely
an endeavour to spiritualise prevalent Apocalyptic ideas, viewed
its emphasis on a visible Parousia and its Judaistic element with
suspicion.

JERUSALEM TRADITIONS

Dependence on Mark and Luke will not account for all the
phenomena of the Fourth Gospel. But neither will the hypothesis
of a third written source.

The masterful handling of Synoptic materials, and especially of
the Synoptic Chronology, taken in connection with the evidence that
the author had a first-hand knowledge of the topography of Jerusalem
and of Jewish usage, suggests that the author had a recognised claim
to write as one having authority.

THE JOHANNINE CHRONOLOGY

The possibility that the Johannine Chronology is based on an
attempt to piece together scattered pieces of information picked up
in Jerusalem.

A suggestion to account for the position assigned in the
Johannine Chronology to the Cleansing of the Temple and the
Raising of Lazarus.

On the whole the Johannine Chronology solves more difficulties
than it raises. Illustrations of this thesis.

Fallacy implicit in the comparison of Johannine and Synoptic
Chronology. Strictly speaking, a “Synoptic Chronology ” does not
exist. In the last resort all we have is, Mark versus John; and
there is no reason to suppose that Mark’s arrangement professes to
be in any strict sense chronological. John attempts a chronology,
but, in view of the difficulties involved in a pioneer attempt, it may
well contain serious inaccuracies. It cannot be simply dismissed.

Finat Resvuits

Mark, Luke, and John form a series, with a progressive tendency
to emphasise the universal element in Christianity and to minimise
the Apocalyptic. Matthew represents an independent development,
which, as compared with Mark, shows a movement in the reverse
direction in regard to both these points.

The dependence of the Fourth Gospel upon Mark and Luke is a
fact which militates against the acceptance of Apostolic authorship
for the Gospel. But certain other phenomena in the Gospel would
be easier to explain on the hypothesis that the author was a person-
age who had a claim to write with independent authority.

CHAPTER XIV
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS

JoHN’s KNOWLEDGE OF THE SYNOPTICS

Tat John was familiar with the first three Gospels was taken
for granted by the early Fathers, and was until recently assumed
as axiomatic by modern critics. Of late that assumption has
been questioned, as the following quotations will show. In 1910
Professor B. W. Bacon of Yale, after a careful review of the dis-
cussion up to date, pronounced the considered judgement that
John is to Mark in a relation of direct literary dependence ;
that, although Mark is the only Synoptic quoted verbally by
him, John’s narrative has been largely modified by knowledge of
Luke; but that Matthew is “ practically ignored” by John.}
In 1912 Mr. E. R. Buckley? wrote: “1 have not been able to
discover any cases of close resemblance between St. John and
passages peculiar to the First Gospel . . . while it seems clear
that the author of the Fourth Gospel knew St. Mark and
St. Luke’s non-Marcan source.” Lastly, writing in 1920, Dr.
Stanton * concludes a careful study of all the relevant passages
with the words: “ The parallels with St. Mark certainly seem to
afford evidence of an amount and kind sufficient to prove that
the Fourth Evangelist knew that Gospel fairly well. That he
knew either of the others seems more than doubtful.”

1 The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate (Moffat, Yard and Co.),
pp. 366-368.
2 Introduction to the Synoptic Problem, pp. 271, 275.
3 The Gospels as Historical Documents, pt. iii. pp. 214-220.
395

396 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

Between Matthew and John the points of contact are, on any
view, extremely slight. But John has so much in common with
Luke that, if he did not use our Third Gospel, we must conclude
that John and Luke had a common source, either in the form of a
written document or of oral tradition. On that assumption an
important result follows. The Fourth Gospel enters the series
of relations which we ordinarily study under the title of the
Synoptic Problem. The relation of John to Luke becomes com-
parable to that of Luke to Matthew. In both cases there are
two sources in common—Mark and another. The difference is
that, whereas Matthew and Luke use Mark and Q, Luke and
John use Mark and a third source. The common factor is Mark.
This leads at once to the conception of Mark as the primitive
Gospel, circulated in all the Churches, and of Matthew, Luke, and
John as three independent local attempts to enrich and enlarge
that gospel by traditions and documents current in the particular
region in which they were severally produced. This conception
is in itself extremely interesting ; and, if correct, it is one which
carries with it consequences historically of the most far-reaching
character. The critical conclusion, therefore, formulated by Mr.
Buckley and Dr. Stanton demands the most careful examination.

Before reading Dr. Stanton’s book I had provisionally arrived
at the same conclusion ; and finding the conception of the rela-
tion of the primitive Marcan to the three later Gospels which I
have outlined above aesthetically and historically attractive, I had
worked out it and its implications at some considerable length.
To make quite sure of my ground I proceeded to subject the
phenomena to a second and more microscopic examination.
The result of this I submit to the judgement of the reader. To
my own mind it materially strengthens the case for the contention
that John did not use Matthew; but, to my personal regret—
since it meant the jettisoning of much that I had written—it
decidedly favours the view that John is dependent on Luke as
well as on Mark.

cx. xiv THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 397

JOHN AND Mark

Matthew and Luke, desiring to tell their story faithfully,
copied their sources with only such verbal alteration as the
exigencies of adaptation, abridgement, and literary embellish-
ment suggested ; and, as we have seen, each of them reproduces
over 50 % of the actual words used in Mark. John, the
preacher, the thinker, the mystic, aiming avowedly at writing, not
a biography, but a message meant to burn—“ that believing ye
may have life in his name ’—was not likely to write, like the
other Evangelists, with a copy of Mark or any other document
in front of him. The materials he uses have all been fused in
the crucible of his creative imagination, and it is from the image
in his mind’s eye, far more vivid than the written page, that he
paints his picture. Accordingly, when he tells a story that
occurs in Mark, not 20 % of the words he uses are the same—
but that is precisely what makes it specially significant that he
often reproduces some of the more out-of-the-way phrases of
Mark.

Of these I select six, whose occurrence in both Mark and
John can hardly be explained as accidental :

δηναρίων διακοσίων ἄρτους Mk. vi. 37 --δηναρίων διακοσίων
ἄρτοι Jn. vi. 1.

μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦς. . . τριακοσίων δηνα-
ρίων Mk. xiv. 3 and ὅ -- μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτίμου . .
τριακοσίων δηναρίων Jn. xii. 3 and 5. ΝᾺ, πιστική in
this sense is not found elsewhere in Greek literature, except in
allusions to this passage.

ἐγείρεσθε ἄγωμεν In. xiv. 31 recalls Mk. xiv. 42—identical
words used at identically the same point in the story.

o Ilérpos .. . θερμαινόμενος Mk. xiv. 54=0 Πέτρος.
θερμαινόμενος ὅτι. xviii. 18.

Pilate’s question “ θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν τὸν βασιλέα τῶν
Ἰουδαίων ;” Mk. xv. 9-- βούλεσθε οὖν ὑμῖν ἀπολύσω τὸν
βασιλέα τῶν ᾿Ἰουδαίων ;” In. xviii. 39.

898 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. m0

” Φ Ν / / Ve \ ΄

ἔγειραι ρον τὸν κράββατὸν cov .. . καὶ ἦρε τὸν κράβ-
βατον αὐτοῦ καὶ περιεπάτει ὅτι. ν. 8:-9-- ἔγειραν . . . ἄρον τὸν
κράββατόν cov... καὶ ἄρας τὸν κράββατον ἐξῆλθεν

Mk. ii. 11-12. Notable for two points. Firstly, κράββατον
is condemned by the grammarians as a vulgarism, and it is
altered by both Matthew and Luke wherever it occurs in Mark.
Secondly, in John the phrase occurs in the story of the lame man
at Bethesda, in Mark in that of the paralytic borne of four. But
Christ did not speak in Greek; the identity, therefore, of the
Greek phrase seems most naturally explained if the vocabulary
of Mark was familiar to John. Analogous instances of this trick
of memory by which a phrase used in one incident by Mark is
transferred to another are specially frequent in Matthew, who
also knew Mark almost by heart.1 Similarly εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα
(els ὧν 8S) Jn. vi. 71, cf. xx. 24, may be a recollection of the
phrase in Mk. xiv. 20 and 43.

The close agreement of John with Mark in these particular
passages is the more noticeable since the phrases used in the
parallels in both Matthew and Luke happen on all these occasions
to be quite different from Mark’s. Besides, agreements of a less
striking character of Mark and John against one or both of the
other two Gospels occur wherever John and the Synoptics run
parallel. To appreciate the full force of this point the student
must be at the pains to work through all the passages in John
which have close parallels to Mark, and to underline all words
which occur in any of the Synoptics, using different colours
according as the words are found in one, two, or three of them.
Or, as an alternative, he may study the parallels carefully in
Rushbrooke’s Synopticon, where words are differently printed
according as they appear in one, two, three, or four of the
documents.”

1 Cf. Hawkins’s Hor. Syn. p. 168 ff.

2 The important parallels are as follows: The Baptist (Jn. i. 19-34=
Mk. i. 7-10); the Cleansing of the Temple (Jn. ii. 13-22 =Mk. xi 15-19); the

Feeding of the Five Thousand (Jn, vi. 1-15=Mk, vi. 31-44); the Walking on
the Water (Jn. vi. 15-21=Mk. vi. 45-52); the Anointing at Bethany (Jn. xii.

cx. xiv THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 399

It will be noticed that John always has a certain number of
verbal agreements with Mark; hence wherever either Matthew
or Luke have reproduced Mark’s wording exactly John agrees
with them also. But, though he frequently supports Mark
where the others have deserted kim, he very rarely agrees with
either of them when they depart from Mark. To this rule there
are a few exceptions, real or apparent, which I shall discuss
shortly. Agreements, of course, which are obviously accidental,
like the substitution of εἶπεν for λέγει, or the addition of ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς,
or any other name implied in the context, for this purpose may
be ignored.

Another point on which Stanton?! lays special stress is the fact
that, whereas both Matthew and Luke (and therefore Q) have
much fuller accounts than Mark of the teaching of John the
Baptist, the only instance here of verbal resemblance between the
Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists is in a sentence where John
agrees with Mark against the other two. Similarly in regard to
the teaching of Christ. There are very few sayings of Christ in
John which are verbally at all like sayings found in the Synoptics;
all but one (Jn. xiii. 16=Mt. x. 24=Lk. vi. 40) occur in Mark,
and the wording of John’s version is usually a shade nearer to
Mark than it is to the others. Seeing that Matthew and Luke
are so infinitely richer than Mark in sayings of Christ, the large

1-11=Mk. xiv. 3-9); the Triumphal Entry (Jn. xii, 12-19=Mk. xi. 1-10) ;
certain details in the story of the Last Supper, including the foretelling in
sentences verbally identical of Judas’ betrayal (Jn. xiii. 21 -- ΜΚ. xiv. 18) and
of Peter’s Denial (Jn. xiii. 38=Mk. xiv. 30); the Arrest (Jn. xviii. 3-10=
Mk. xiv. 43-50) ; Peter’s Denial (Jn. xviii. 15-18, 25-27=Mk. xiv. 54, 66-72) ;
certain details in the Trial, including ‘“‘ Art thou the King of the Jews?”
(Jn. xviii. 33=Mk. xv. 2), ‘‘ Thou sayest”’ (Jn. xviii. 37 =Mk. xv. 2); Barabbas
(Jn. xviii. 39-40=Mk. xv. 6-15); the Mocking (Jn. xix. 2-3=Mk. xv. 16-20) ;
the Crucifixion (Jn. xix. 17-24=Mk. xv. 22-27); the Entombment (Jn. xix.
38-42 =Mk. xv. 43-46); and the Discovery of the Empty Tomb (Jn. xx. 1-2=
Mk. xvi. 1-8). Of these the Walking on the Water and the Anointing at
Bethany, though found in Mark and Matthew, are absent from Luke. Besides
this, John has a few sayings which occur in the Synoptics in a different context:
Jn. iv. 44=Mk. vi. 4; Jn. xii. 25=Mk. viii. 35; Jn. xiii, 20=Mk. ix. 37;
Jn, xiii, 16=Jn. xv. 20=Mt. x. 24=Lk. vi. 40.
1 Op. cit. pp. 215, 220.

400 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. I

proportion of sayings derived by John from Mark is remarkable.
It seems to prove that Mark was either much better known to
John or much more highly valued by him than the others.1

Clearly the facts so far stated amount to little short of a
demonstration that John knew the Gospel of Mark, and knew it
well. But they suggest doubts as to his acquaintance with the
other two Synoptics.

I must, however, digress for a moment to point out that this
evidence for John’s use of Mark cannot easily be fitted in with
the hypothesis, recently put forward by Dr. Burney, that the
Fourth Gospel is a translation from the Aramaic. The only way
it could be done would be to assume that Mark and John are
independent translators of the same Aramaic original. Not
being an Aramaic scholar myself, I asked a friend who is expert in
the language to examine the verbal differences between Mark and
John in the accounts of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the
Walking on the Water, which obviously are test passages, in order
to ascertain whether or no they were explicable as translation
variants. He reported that they were not. There is a further
consideration. Mr. G. R. Driver has pointed out that the pheno-
mena, on which Dr. Burney’s argument is based,? occur most
frequently in the discourses and are comparatively rare in the
narrative portions of the Gospel. The existence of a linguistic

1 Prof. C. H. Dodd (Hzxpositor, Oct. 1921, p. 286 ff.) has an interesting argu-
ment depending on the identification of the journey to Jerusalem, Mk. x. 1,
with that in Jn. vii. 10 (cf. οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τὶς γνῷ, Mk. ix. 30, with οὐ φανερῶς,
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐν κρυπτῷ, In. vii. 10), that the order of events in the section Jn. vi. 1-
vii. 10 is dependent on that in Mark (vi. 31-x. 1)—in which case we note inci-
dentally John’s copy of Mark included Luke’s Great Omission. The argument
cannot be done justice to if presented briefly, but if, as I am inclined to think,
it is sound, it affords strong confirmation of John’s use of Mark.

2 The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 1922). Prof. C. E. Torrey
in the Harvard Theological Review, p. 326 fi., Oct. 1923, assents to the general
position that the Gospel is a translation from Aramaic, but rejects practically
all the alleged mistranslations on which Dr. Burney’s argument largely rests.
He then proceeds to offer another set of ‘mistranslations” of his own
discovering.

3 Cf. 6. R. Driver, “The Original Language of the Fourth Gospel,”
Jewish Guardian, Jan. 5 and 12, 1923.

ox. αν THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 401

distinction between the discourses and the narrative is a remark-
able fact, and one that calls for an explanation. We may seek it
in any one of three directions. (1) We may conjecture that the
discourses, though not the narrative, have been translated from
an Aramaic document. (2) We may surmise that the discourses
are by the author of the Gospel, but embody a larger proportion
of authentic sayings of Christ, originally spoken in Aramaic, than
is generally supposed. (3) The author of the Gospel belonged to
that order of “ prophets” which was so conspicuous and influential
in the Apostolic age. The discourses came to him “in the
Spirit.” In that case, it would be psychologically credible that
the Greek which he wrote or dictated when under this influence
should reflect strongly the idiom of his native Aramaic tongue—
just as to-day a Highlander or Welshman, who has lived most
of his life in England, may in moments of excitement speak with
the accent of earlier years. In view of the arguments adduced
in the previous chapter that John was a prophet, I am personally
inclined to favour this explanation. But I would point out that
the second and third of these hypotheses are not really mutually
exclusive. Genuine sayings of Christ, which had sunk down into
the depths of memory, might well emerge again amplified and
re-orientated by the subconscious workings of the prophet’s
mind. And the supposition that there was at work a combination
of these two influences would give an added meaning to the
reiterated emphasis in the Gospel on the work of the Spirit as
illuminating and interpreting at some later time the actual
teaching of the historic Christ. ‘I have many things to tell you,
but ye cannot bear them now.”

JOHN AND LUKE

The case for a literary dependence of John, either on Luke
or on a source embodied in Luke, rests in the first instance on
the remarkable points of contact between these Gospels in regard

to the sisters Martha and Mary. Too much stress ought not to
2

402 THE FOUR GOSPELS pT. ΠῚ

be laid on the fact that the two sisters are suddenly named, xi. 1,
as if they were well-known characters, though that is not without
significance. But the description in this same verse of Lazarus
as “of Bethany, of the village of Mary and Martha” is very
difficult to explain unless John’s readers were familiar with the
story of the two sisters told in very much the same words as in
Luke. For, since Bethany is named four times in Mark in con-
nection with striking incidents, it did not require to be identified.
The point, then, of John’s words “ of the village of Martha and
Mary ” must be, not to identify Bethany by connecting it with
the sisters, but rather to identify the “ certain village ” unnamed,
where according to Luke (x. 38) the sisters lived, with the well-
known village of Bethany.

Again, in this same passage (xi. 1) John, when introducing
Lazarus for the first time, takes that opportunity, not only of
giving a name to the unnamed village, but also to the unnamed
woman who, according to Mark, anointed our Lord’s head in
that place. She is Mary, the sister of Martha. And this is what
gives point to the addition later on of the words “ and Martha
served” in John’s account of the anointing (xii. 2); they are
meant to clinch the identification by a further allusion to the
Lucan story. But this elaborate cross-identification of persons,
places, and incidents as between Mark and Luke is natural if
both these Gospels were standard works read in the Church;
it is not equally natural if the Martha and Mary story was
merely extant in floating tradition.

What is still more remarkable, John introduces into the story
of this Anointing certain details derived, not from Mark (xiv. 2 ff.)
but from the story of the Anointing by a sinner during the
Galilean ministry (Lk. vii. 36 ff.), which Luke substitutes for the
Marcan Anointing at Bethany in the last week at Jerusalem.
Mark (xiv. 3) says the woman ‘
head,” John (xii. 3) agrees with Luke in saying she anointed his
feet and wiped them with her hair. And this is not an accident,
it is implied in the preparatory allusion to the incident (xi. 2).

‘poured the ointment on his

on. αν THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 403

The natural explanation of these phenomena is that in John’s
mind a combination has been effected between persons and
details mentioned in Mark’s and Luke’s versions of the Anointing
and in the anecdote about Martha and Mary related by Luke.

The above examples of the assignment by John to definite
persons or places of incidents left vague in Mark and Luke cannot
be considered apart from evidence as to the same tendency
elsewhere. In Mark and Luke the person who cuts off an ear
of the high priest’s servant in Gethsemane is unnamed; so is
the servant ; John gives the names of Peter and Malchus. In
Mark (vi. 37) the disciples protest that two hundred pennyworth
of bread would not suffice to feed the multitude; in John (vi. 7)
it is Philip who says this. There is reason to think that the
author of the Fourth Gospel, if not himself a Jew of Palestine,
at least had a good “ pilgrim’s knowledge” of the country.
Accordingly, some of these identifications, for instance that of
Bethany with the village of Martha and Mary, or of Mary with
the anointing woman, may possibly rest on a Jerusalem tradition.
The possibility, however, that the identifications are made on
good authority does not affect our argument. The fact that
the identifications required to be made suggests that the public
for whom John wrote was already familiar with the persons and
incidents in question, and for that reason would be interested in
the further details that he adds.

In the light of this conclusion we proceed to examine the
resemblances between the accounts of the Passion in Luke and
John. And for the sake of brevity I shall for the time being
ignore the distinction between Luke and a source embodied in.
Luke. But we have learnt the lesson that it is unwise to draw
wide conclusions in the sphere of higher criticism without being
sure of the text we use. Three of the most remarkable points
of contact in the Passion Story of Luke and John are Peter’s
visit to the Empty Tomb (Lk. xxiv. 12), the salutation “ Peace
be with you” (Lk. xxiv. 36), and the sentence, reminiscent of
the Thomas story, ‘“‘ He showed them his hands and his feet”

404 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. UI

(Lk. xxiv. 40). These constitute three of the eight Lucan major
“Western non-interpolations”’ definitely rejected by Hort as
absent from D and the Old Latin. Whether or not we agree
with Hort, it is clear that, the evidence for omission being what
it is, they cannot be used to prove a literary connection between
the two Gospels.

The outstanding coincidence between John and Luke is
the representation of the first Resurrection Appearance to the
Twelve as taking place in Jerusalem, not (asin Mark and Matthew)
in Galilee. But agreement on a point of this magnitude, though
very natural if John knew and used Luke, cannot in itself, simply
because of its magnitude, be quoted as evidence that he did
know him. Fora fact of this character, divergence between Mark
and Luke implies a divergence in the early tradition, and John
and Luke might be drawing independently on the same tradition.
The same thing applies to John’s mention of the name Judas,
not Iscariot, which otherwise would imply a preference of the
Lucan to the Marcan list of the Twelve. To prove literary
dependence, we must find examples of the use of language more
or less identical, where the resemblance is of a kind not readily
explicable by coincidence ; or we must be able to detect in some
story additions or modifications of quite minor details of a kind
not likely to have been preserved apart from the context in which
they are embodied.

Of these there are several: the observation that Judas’s
offer to the high priests to betray Jesus was a direct suggestion
of the devil (Lk. xxii. 3; Jn. xiii. 2); Pilate’s three tomes repeated
formula, “1 find no fault in him ” (Lk. xxiii. 4, 14, 22); the detail
that it was the right ear of the high priest’s servant that was cut
off (Lk. xxii. 50; Jn. xviii. 10); the point that the tomb was one
“in which no one had ever yet been laid”; the statement that
two angels—not one as in Mark and Matthew—were seen by
the women at the tomb. Still more evidential is the prophecy
by our Lord of Peter’s denial (Mk. xiv. 30; Lk. xxi. 34;
Jn, xiii. 38).

eee

cx. χιν THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 405

Mk. xiv. 30. Lk. xxii. 84. Jn. xiii. 38.
ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι λέγω σοι, Πέτρε, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι,
σὺ σήμερον ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ οὐ φωνήσει σήμερον ἀλέκ-. οὐ μὴ ἀλέκτωρ φωνήσῃ
πρὶν ἢ δὶς ἀλέκτορα φων- τωρ ἕως οὗ ἀρνήσῃ με τρίς.

ἢσαι ἕως τρίς pe ἀπαρνήσῃ
τρίς με ἀπαρνήσῃ. εἰδέναι.

It will be observed that the Johannine wording is almost identical
with the Lucan just where that differs from Mark, but it is pre-
fixed by the word amen asin Mark. This suggests an unconscious
conflation of the Marcan and Lucan versions.

The above passages, added to the impression made by the
Martha-Mary incidents, make it difficult to deny some literary
connection between Luke and John. That being so, certain
infinitesimal points of contact, which if they stood alone would
prove nothing, carry weight as confirmatory evidence. With
ἄρον ἄρον, Jn. xix. 15, compare αἦρε τοῦτον, Lk. xxiii. 18. The
double “ crucify him” occurs both in Jn. xix. 6 and Lk. xxiii. 21.
The description of the women at the cross opens with ἱστήκεισαν,
Jn. xix. 25, cf. Lk. xxiii. 49, as the first word of the sentence.

But once the dependence of John upon Luke (or a source
embodied in Luke) is established, certain other features in the
Johannine story assume a new significance. They point to the
working of a tendency similar to that noted above in the allusions
to Martha and Mary. An enhanced definiteness and vividness
is given to incidents, recorded separately in Mark or Luke, by
bringing them into connection with one another; and they are
further elucidated by modifications and additions derived either
from the author’s own reflection or from independent tradition.

(1) Mark describes the death of our Lord by the word ἐξ-
émvevoev. Luke uses the same word, prefaced by the saying,
“Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,” παρατίθεμαι
τὸ πνεῦμά pov, Which (except for the word “ Father”) is a
quotation from Ps. xxxi. 5. The phrase in which John describes
the death παρέδωκε τὸ πνεῦμα is explicable as a conflated
recollection of Mark and Luke.

(2) The discrepancy between the Marcan and Lucan accounts

406 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. II

of the Mocking is striking—still more so if we accept the sug-
gestion that Herod gave the robe as ἃ compliment.! According
to Luke this was done by Herod before Pilate had condemned
Jesus ; Mark places it after Pilate’s condemnation and makes
it a spontaneous act of Pilate’s soldiers. Now Luke represents
Pilate, hoping to placate the Jews, as twice making the offer
“1 will chastise him and let him go,” as an alternative to the
death penalty. John makes Pilate, with the same hope, actually
chastise Jesus and bring Him out before them clothed with the
purple robe. Thus John agrees with Luke in placing this
incident before Pilate’s final condemnation, and in connecting
it with Pilate’s effort to induce the Jews to accept less than the
death penalty. But, in the actual details of the incident, John’s
version approximates more nearly to Mark’s, especially in
assigning the mocking to Pilate’s soldiers instead of to Herod.
This again suggests that John is conflating the two accounts.
(3) Assuming that Hort is right in omitting from the text of
Luke (xxiv. 12) the description of a visit of Peter to the tomb,
there remains in Luke (xxiv. 24) the statement by the Apostles
to the two from Emmaus, “ Some of them with us went to the
tomb ” (after the women had announced their discovery that
it was empty) and found it empty, ‘“‘ but him they saw not.”
The visit of Peter and another disciple to the tomb recorded by
John gives detail and precision to this Lucan statement. Our
view on this point will depend on our view of the contents of the
lost ending of Mark. It certainly looks as if this told that the
women, in fear, “told no man” that they had found the tomb
empty, and that the Twelve first saw the Lord in Galilee. If
that is what happened, then the visit of Peter and the other
disciple to the tomb looks like an attempt by conjecture to give
the names of the disciples mentioned as visiting it in the Lucan
story, comparable to the identifications of persons or places left
nameless in Mark and Luke which have been already discussed.

1 Cf. A. W. Verrall in J.7.S. x. p. 321 ff. The suggestion does not quite
convince me.

on. xiv THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 407

To sum up. The interest shown by John in identifying
and connecting persons and places, or in elaborating incidents,
mentioned in Luke is more likely if they occurred in some
document regarded by his readers as a standard account of the
life of Christ rather than in a mere floating tradition.

But we have still to ask whether the source known to
John was our Gospel of Luke or the source Proto-Luke, which
we have seen reason to believe was incorporated in it. The
difficulty of answering this question lies in the small number of
passages which show points of contact between Luke and John
where we can be quite sure that Luke is not using the source
Proto-Luke. Suppose, for example, that we could be certain
that Luke’s version of Peter’s Denial and of the Entombment
was dependent on Mark alone, then the fact that John adopts
some of Luke’s verbal modifications of Mark would prove that
he used our Luke. I am inclined to think that Proto-Luke
either omitted these incidents or treated them very briefly (cf.
p-. 217); but the possibility being open that Luke’s modifica-
tions of Mark may be due to a parallel version of the incidents
in Proto-Luke, we desiderate further evidence. But from the
nature of the case we have only infinitesimals to go upon.

(1) Objectors ask (Jn. vii. 41-42): “ What, doth the Christ
come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said that the
Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the
village where David was?’ No reply is given; yet the founda-
tion stone of early Christian apologetic was the exact corre-
spondence of details in the life of Jesus with Old Testament
Messianic prophecy. But if every one of John’s readers knew
that, though His father was a carpenter of Nazareth, He was of
the royal seed, and by a seeming accident had been born in
Bethlehem, we have a delicate piece of what in Greek tragedy is
called εἰρωνεία. That which is alleged as an objection to His
Messiahship is really its confirmation. But could John have
presumed this knowledge in his readers except in a Church
where Luke (or Matthew) was read ?

408 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

(2) “ What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending
where he was before?” (Jn. vi. 62). This is addressed to
murmuring disciples. It gains much in point if we assume that
the story of the Ascension was familiar to John’s readers. We
have seen (p. 142) that the words in Lk. xxiv. 51 which men-
tion the Ascension as taking place in sight of the Twelve are
probably original. In any case the Acts, by the same author,
describes the event.

(3) The Feeding of the Five Thousand is placed by John on
the East side of the Lake of Galilee, by Mark (followed by
Matthew) on the West. It is suggested below that John may
have introduced into it details from Mark’s Feeding of the
Four Thousand which takes place near Decapolis. But the
definite statement in Luke that the miracle took place near
Bethsaida, which is on the East bank of the entrance of the
Jordan into the Lake, would at least be an additional reason
for John’s supposing it took place on the East side. There is
another consideration. John’s version of the Feeding of the
Five Thousand exhibits two of those Minor Agreements of
Matthew and Luke against Mark which we have already dis-
cussed (p. 313)—the allusion to the healing immediately before
the miracle, and the word περισσεύσαντα (Jn. vi. 2,12). The
natural explanation of this would be that John had read the
story, not only in Mark, but also in either Matthew or Luke.
Seeing, however, that his knowledge of Matthew is extremely
doubtful, knowledge of Luke is the simplest explanation.

Neither singly nor together do these points amount to demon-
strative proof that what John knew was, not Proto-Luke, but
our Gospel of Luke; yet, to my mind, they make the balance
of probability incline still very decidedly in that direction.

JOHN AND MatTtHEew

The points of contact between Matthew and John are
extremely few; fewer still are those which are of a material

cx. αν THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 409

character. (a) John twice has the saying “ The servant is not
greater than his master” (Jn. xiii. 16, xv. 20; cf. Mt. x. 24=
Lk. vi. 40). John’s phrase is slightly nearer to Matthew than
to Luke, and the corollary in John, “ If they persecuted me they
will also persecute you,’ resembles that in Matthew, “If they
have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more
shall they call those of his household?”’ But in view of the great
differences of the Lucan, Matthean, and Johannine versions of
the saying and also of its epigrammatic character—epigrams
easily circulate by word of mouth—there is no need to postu-
late a written source. The sentiment that Christians could
not expect the world to treat them better than their Master
must have been replete with practical consolation to the
average Christian, and a saying of Christ which put this in a
pithy form is likely to have been part of the stock-in-trade
of many a Christian preacher. (Ὁ) Twice (iii. 35 and xiii. 3)
John has the phrase “The Father has given all things into
his hands,” which has close affinities to “ All things have been
delivered to me by my Father” (Mt. xi. 27=Lk. x. 22). But
as this saying occurs in Luke it is no evidence that John
used Matthew. (c) Again, the healing from a distance of the
Nobleman’s Son (βασιλικός perhaps =king’s officer) at Caper-
naum (iv. 46 ff.) has a general resemblance to the story of
the Centurion’s Servant (Mt. vi. 5 ff. =Lk. vu. 2 ff.). But, even
if John is describing the same incident, his representation of
the details is so different that he may well be giving a version
of the incident preserved in a different line of tradition, or
may, after his manner, be conflating it with another incident.
John’s verbal agreements with Matthew and Luke are so slight
as to be easily explicable by accident—but, such as they
are, they are about evenly distributed between the two.
In no case is the verbal agreement between John and either
Matthew or Luke close enough to prove literary dependence.
But, even if this were otherwise, it would not be evidence
that John knew Matthew, for the incident in question seems

410 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. Itt

to have stood in Q; so that John could have derived it either
from Luke or from Q.

There remain to be considered a few minor agreements of
Matthew and John against Mark. These are of very much the
same order as the Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke
discussed in Chapter XI., and I believe they are to be
explained in exactly the same way.

(a) The story of the Walking on the Water does not occur
in Luke, but there is one small verbal agreement of John with
Matthew against Mark. Mark (vi. 47) says the boat was “in
the midst of the sea,” John (vi. 19) that it was ‘‘ about twenty
or thirty furlongs from the land,”’ Matthew (xiv. 24) (in the text
of W.H.) that it was distant “many furlongs from the land.”
This reading in Matthew is found in B, the Ferrar Group, and
the Old Syriac. But ~ CL, with the support of D and the
Old Latin, read “in the midst of the sea.” Clearly assimilation
has been at work, either in B or in καὶ and their respective sup-
porters. If B is right, x has assimilated Matthew to Mark ;
if x is right, B has assimilated Matthew to John. Which is
the more probable ? Obviously, since Mark was the least read
and John the most valued of the Gospels, assimilation of Matthew
to the text of John is more probable than to that of Mark ;
while, since Matthew indubitably copied Mark, an agreement of
Matthew with Mark does not look like assimilation. But if we
accept the text of καὶ D Old Lat., we then find, on comparing the
parallel versions, that the outstanding point is the agreement
of Mark and John against Matthew in saying nothing whatever
about Peter’s attempt to walk on the water to meet Jesus,
with the notable moral it involves. John’s ignoring of this
striking addition tells decidedly against his knowledge of the
Matthean form of the story.

(b) Jn. xii. 8, “The poor ye have always with you, but me
ye have not always.” This occurs word for word in Mark,
Matthew, and John. But Matthew and John concur in omitting
the words “and when ye will ye can benefit them,” which

ox. xiv THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 41]

Mark inserts between the two halves of the antithesis. Coincident
omission, especially where the construction facilitates it, is not
enough to prove literary dependence. But since the whole
verse in John is omitted by the strong combination of D with
Syr. S., we seem to have evidence that even this slight
agreement of Matthew and John is due to textual assimilation.

Matthew and John each add many details not found in
Mark’s account of the Passion. In particular both are con-
cerned to throw the responsibility of the Crucifixion on to the
Jews, and, as far as possible, to exculpate Pilate. Here, then,
especially, if there was any literary connection between the two
Gospels, we should expect to find agreements in incident or
language. But the only points of contact I have noted are
insignificant.

(c) Matthew (xxi. 5) and John (xii. 15) agree in connecting
with the triumphal entry the passage in Zechariah ix. 9, “ Behold,
thy king cometh, sitting on the foal of an ass.” Seeing that
Christians were in the habit of ransacking the Old Testament
for Messianic prophecies, concurrence in such an obvious instance
proves nothing. What is significant is that the words as quoted
by John are so different from Matthew that they must either
represent a different translation of the Hebrew or be free
quotations from memory. ,

(4) Matthew (xxvi. 52) and John (xviii. 11) agree in saying
that Jesus commanded the person who cut off the ear of the
high priest’s servant to put up his sword, ἀπόστρεψόν σου
THY μάχαιραν eis τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς (Mt. xxvi. 52), βάλε τὴν
μάχαιράν σου εἰς τὴν θήκην (Jn. xviii. 11). But they do not
use a single word in common except that for “sword”; while
the reason given by our Lord in Matthew, “They that take
the sword shall perish by the sword,” is quite different from
that given in John, “ The cup which my Father hath given me,
shall I not drink it ?”

(e) In the parallel Mk. xv. 17=Mt. xxvii. 29=Jn. xix. 2,
speaking of the crown of thorns, Mark says they put it “ on him,”

412 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr, UL

Matthew and John agree in saying “on his head.” Since crowns
are made to be worn on the head, the coincidence is not remark-
able. What is remarkable, however, is the difference between
Matthew and Jokn in this very same verse. Matthew’s account
differs from Mark’s in adding the detail that the soldiers put the
reed (as a mock sceptre) into our Lord’s hand. This striking
departure from Mark is not reproduced by John—which makes
it very unlikely that the quite colourless addition of the word
“head”? was suggested to him by familiarity with this verse
of Matthew.

([) Jn. xix. 41, “There was in the place where he was crucified
a garden, and in the garden a tomb,” καινόν, ἐν ᾧ οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς
ἐτέθη. In Mt. xxvii. 60, Joseph puts the body ἐν τῷ καινῷ αὐτοῦ
μνημείῳ. Has the fact that Matthew and John agree in using
the common adjective καινός (=new) any significance? If we
examine the passages more closely, we note that the point of
Matthew’s statement is that the tomb belongs to Joseph, it
was his own new tomb; but the language of John implies that
he did not know to whom it belonged. This makes decidedly
against John having read Matthew. But there is a further
point. D*"??- 69 and several other MSS. read κενόν (=empty)
for καινόν in John. The confusion of az and ε is one of the
commonest errors in MSS., and even in inscriptions; in late Greek
they were, as in Modern Greek, pronounced alike. But if we
ask which of the two adjectives is more likely to be the original
in this passage, at once it is obvious that a scribe with the
phrase of Matthew running in his head would be more likely to
alter κενόν to καινόν than vice versa. Again, so far as the
sense is concerned, κενόν, “empty,” is slightly more appropriate
than καινόν, “new”; for the words which follow, “in which
no man had yet been laid,” are a mere reiteration if preceded by
καινόν, Whereas they add a new point if κενόν preceded—the
tomb was, not only one that happened to be empty, but one that
had never yet been used.

(g) There is one minor agreement which differs from those

cx. xiv THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 413

so far discussed, insomuch as the contexts in which the words
occur are not exactly parallel, smce in John they occur in
the introduction to the Feeding of the Five Thousand, while
in Matthew they occur immediately before the Feeding of the
Four Thousand.

Mt. xv. 29. Jn. vi. 3.
and going up into the hill country, and Jesus went up into the hill
he sat there. country, and there sat with his
disciples.

This passage cannot be discussed apart from the observation
that there are several small points in which John seems to
combine the accounts of the Four Thousand and Five Thousand.
In the account of the Five Thousand in Mark and Matthew,
the disciples take the initiative in asking Jesus to deal with the
multitude, but with the Four Thousand the initiative is His ;
also in the Four Thousand εὐχαριστήσας is substituted for
εὐλόγησε καὶ. John introduces both these modifications into
his version of the Five Thousand. Such modifications are so
trifling and obvious that, if they stood alone, they would prove
nothing ; but, taken in connection with “ went up into the hill
country, and sat there,” they suggest that in John recollection
of the details from the one miracle had become confused with
the other. But the words “‘ went up into the hill country ”
stand in Matthew, but not in Mark. At first blush we seem at
last to have found definite evidence that John knew Matthew.
Not so, however, if the words in question originally stood
in the text of Mark. And the hypothesis that this was the
case seems to me much the easiest explanation of the fact that
they do occur in Matthew—a thing which, to the student of the
Synoptic Problem, really does demand an explanation. Note the
last lines of the parallels printed below—each of 26 letters.

Mk. vii. 31. Mt. xv. 29.
καὶ πάλιν ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τὼν ὁρίων Τύρου καὶ μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς
ἦλθεν διὰ Σιδῶνος εἰς ἦλθεν παρὰ
τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ

ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ὁρίων Δεκαπόλεως. ἀνάβας εἰς τὸ ὄρος ἐκάθητο ἐκεῖ,

414 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1Π

Matthew’s suppression of the geographical details about Tyre
and Decapolis is quite in accord with his general tendency to
compress Mark. Not so the line that he substitutes. Wherever
Matthew adds anything to Mark, it is a saying or an incident
of some special interest, or a turn of phrase which removes a
difficulty. The statement “He went up into the hills, and sat
there ” is not at all like the explanatory editorial amplifications
he is in the habit of making ; nor, again, is it a fact of sufficient
moment to be preserved in floating tradition. I suggest that the
words stood in the text of Mark used by Matthew. If a line
beginning advaBas was followed by one beginning ἀνὰ μέσον, an
omission by homoioteleuton would be easy. Or suppose, as in
x, the average line in an early copy of Mark had 13-14 letters.
it might read :

ANAMECONTONOP
IONAEKAMOAEQC
ANABACEICTOOP
OCEKAOHTOEKEI

Two lines, both beginning with ANA and ending with OP,
afford an invitation for an omission by homoioteleuton which
a copyist inclined to that error could hardly decline.

The suggestion that the words in question stood in the
original text of Mark is attractive for another reason. “ Trans-
ference of formulae,” that is, the repetition in more than one
context of phrases found in his source, is a notable characteristic
of Matthew. If the words “going up into the mountain, he
sat there” stood in this place in the copy of Mark used by
Matthew, we have the original of the phrase ““ He went up into
the mountain, and when he had sat down,” which provides the
narrative framework of the Sermon on the Mount. Lastly,
conflation in John’s memory of the Five Thousand with the
Four Thousand in Mark’s rather than Matthew’s version would
help to explain the fact that John places the Five Thousand
on the Kast of the Sea of Galilee, although Mark appears to place
it on the West shore. The Four Thousand is placed by Mark

cx. xtv THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 415

on the shore of the lake adjacent to Decapolis, which is on the
East side; but Matthew omits the mention of Decapolis and
does not give the slightest hint that the miracle took place on
that side of the lake.

(h) Matthew and John stand alone in representing the first
Appearance after the Resurrection as being to a woman. In
Matthew there is a mention of an Appearance to the two Maries
on their way from the tomb with the angel’s message to the
Apostles, and our Lord’s command, “ Go, tell my brethren that
they depart into Galilee, and there they shall see me.” In
John, after they have announced the angel’s message to the
Twelve, and after Peter and another disciple have visited the
tomb, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene alone in the garden,
and uses the words, “ Go unto my brethren, and say unto them,
I ascend unto my Father. . . .” Nowhere else does Jesus use
the phrase “ my brethren” of the Twelve; but apart from the
coincidence in this rare expression, there is little that favours
a literary connection, since the first Appearance after the Resur-
rection is the kind of incident in regard to which parallel versions
in oral tradition would be likely to exist.

But this coincidence depends upon the authenticity of the
word ὠδελῴφοῖς in Matthew; and μαθηταῖς is substituted for
this in 157, 1555, and a citation by Cyril of Alexandria. The
possibility must be faced that ἀδελφοῖς in the accepted text of
Matthew is an assimilation to John; and, but for the fact that
μαθηταῖς might also be explained by assimilation to Mt. xxvii. 7,
I should use a stronger word than “ possibility.” If, however,
the suggestion tentatively put forward above (p. 357 ff.) be
accepted, that the lost end of Mark contained an account of an
Appearance to Mary, Matthew and John will both be dependent,
either on the lost conclusion of Mark, or on an oral tradition
which represented what people could remember of its contents.

To sum up, the evidence that can be adduced to prove John’s
knowledge of Matthew is quite inconclusive.

Professor Bacon, taking it for granted that the Gospel of

416 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

Matthew cannot have been unknown to John, suggests that he
“ignored it” as being “the most anti-Pauline of the Gospels.”
I am inclined to agree with this verdict in substance, but would

express it differently. Matthew cannot, I think, as a whole ᾿

‘

be described as “ anti-Pauline ’—only the source M. But the
author of the Fourth Gospel, who had lived through the later
stages of the Judaistic controversy, would have been acutely
sensitive to the implications of commands—emphatic from their
position as the opening words of Great Discourses—like “ Go
not into any way of the Gentiles ” (Mt. x. 5), “‘ The Scribes and
Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all things therefore whatsoever
they bid you, these do and observe” (Mt. xxii. 2 f.). Again,
since in John’s own interpretation of Christ’s teaching the
spiritual Presence of the Paraclete is practically substituted for
the visible Return of Christ, there is another element conspicuous
in the Discourses of Matthew which he could not possibly accept
as authentic. But if (as on the whole I think probable) Matthew
was known to his contemporary, the author of the Apocalypse
(cf. p. 469 n.), it must have been already read in Asia. I recall
the interpretation (p. 19 f. above) of the Papias fragment on
Matthew: the discourses (τὰ λόγια) in the Greek Gospel are
characterised as being “ only a translation, and that unauthor-
ised,” of whatever it was that the Apostle Matthew wrote. If this
is correct, the Gospel of Matthew has just reached Ephesus, but
John the Elder, a personage of great weight in that Church,
declines to accept it as having apostolic authority. Now if
John the Elder was himself the author of the Fourth Gospel he
could adopt no other attitude. Himself convinced that Christ
came to supersede the Law and that the Parousia is to be under-
stood spiritually, he could not accept as Apostolic a Gospel
conspicuous for Apocalyptic and Judaistic sayings.

JERUSALEM TRADITIONS

The above comparison of John and the Synoptics leaves on
the mind the impression that besides Mark and Luke (or con-

Se ee a τ ς

SS a

————

——

cx, αν THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 417

ceivably Proto-Luke instead of Luke) John used no other docu-
mentary source. Deduct from John what seems to be derived
from Mark and Luke and only a few odd incidents remain. Ac-
cordingly the departures from the Synoptic order and chronology,
which are such a notable feature of the Fourth Gospel, cannot
plausibly be explained by the influence of a third written source ;
for, if so, that source should have accounted for a larger propor-
tion of his total narrative matter. It is in the direction, then, of
the personality of the author that we must look for an explanation
of the major divergences of the Fourth Gospel from the Synoptics.

A standing difficulty of New Testament scholarship has
always been to explain why the author of the Fourth Gospel goes
out of his way, as it were, to differ from the Synoptics on points
having no theological significance. First and foremost there is
his adoption of a chronological scheme glaringly at variance
with the other Gospels. To a large matter like this, or like the
day of the Last Supper, he may have attached special import-
ance. But he also contradicts them on what seem quite trivia.
points ; affirming, for instance, that Bethsaida (not Capernaum)
was the city of Andrew and Peter, or that the Anointing at
Bethany took place four days earlier than the other Gospels put
it, and that Jesus departed and hid Himself (Jn. xii. 36) between
Palm Sunday and the Passion. But John’s main purpose in
writing was clearly not historical but doctrinal. He is anxious
to commend to the Church a particular religious and theological
attitude. Now people who wish to gain a hearing for an un-
familiar, and possibly controverted, doctrinal position are usually
particularly careful to emphasise when possible their agreement
with what is already familiar to, and accepted by, their hearers ;
they only dispute the accepted where it is necessary for their
purpose. Scholars who hold that John freely altered or invented
narratives for dogmatic ends have been curiously blind to the
consideration that the more the difference between the theo-
logical standpoint of John and the Synoptics is stressed, the

more inexplicable becomes John’s policy of contradicting them
2E

418 THE FOUR GOSPELS PY. ΠῚ

on details of history on which doctrinally nothing turns. But
from any point of view the historical discrepancies between John
and the Synoptics constitute a difficult problem.

The difficulty is considerably reduced in magnitude by the
result, to which a critical comparison of the documents seems to
point, that the only Synoptics used by John were Mark and
Luke. Where John throws over the Synoptic chronology, or
modifies their story in smaller details, he is not flying in the face
of a universal Church tradition embodied in three separate
Gospels, one of them ascribed to an Apostle ; he is only correct-
ing Mark and Luke, neither of which was reputed to be the work
of eye-witness. But if the author of the Fourth Gospel had
himself visited Jerusalem—which would naturally be regarded in
the Church at large as the fountain-head of authentic tradition—
he might consider himself to be in a position to correct or explain,
as one having authority, the story as told in these two Gospels.
While the difficulty of explaining his boldness in so drastically
correcting the lives of Christ hitherto known in the Church for
which he wrote would disappear completely, if we could suppose
that he could claim in any sense to be himself an eye-witness—
even if that meant no more than that, as a boy of twelve, taken
by his father to the Passover, he had been one of the multitude
who beheld the Crucifixion. At any rate the hypothesis that
the author of the Gospel had a personal acquaintance with
Jerusalem tradition would considerably ease the critical diffi-
culties arising from a documentary comparison of this Gospel
with the Synoptics.

There can be no reasonable doubt that the author of the
Fourth Gospel had a first-hand knowledge of the topography of
Palestine, and especially of the city of Jerusalem. He was, more-
over, a Jew versed in Rabbinic tradition and the usages of
the Temple system. This has of recent years been generally
admitted by scholars;1 but if any doubt on that point remained,
it has been removed by the linguistic evidence adduced by Dr.

1 Cf. B. W. Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, 1910, p. 385 ff.

on. αν THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 419

Burney in the book to which allusion has already been made.
That evidence does not, in my opinion, justify Dr. Burney’s own
conclusion that our Gospel is a translation from the Aramaic ;
but it puts it beyond reasonable doubt that the author was a
man whose thoughts naturally fell into the idiom of that language.
It does not, however, necessarily follow that he was a Jew of
Palestinian origin. Every Jew of the Dispersion endeavoured to
visit Jerusalem at one of the great Feasts to offer the sacrifice—
once at least in his life, oftener if possible. The career of Paul
shows that in the first generation conversion to Christianity in
no way lessened the inborn passion of the Jew to see Jerusalem.
The question whether the author of the Gospel had more than a
pilgrim’s knowledge of the city is one that cannot be answered
apart from a consideration of the date of writing and the
personality of the writer, but that he had at least a pilgrim’s
acquaintance with Jerusalem may be taken as established.

Tue JOHANNINE CHRONOLOGY

A pilgrim who visits sites hallowed by sacred association
always takes the opportunity of asking questions on the spot in
regard to persons or events connected with them. The answers
he gets are not always correct, but they are accepted as authorita-
tive. A Jewish Christian pilgrim any time during the first
century would be able to gather much information of value ; but
it would not all be equally authentic. The identity of the village
of Martha and Mary, the name Malchus, the day of the Last
Supper, the fact of previous visits to Jerusalem, are the kind of
details that such an one would learn. Exact chronology is not
a matter in regard to which popular local tradition is apt to be
concerned ; nevertheless the Johannine chronology may be
based on a conscientious attempt by the author to piece together
scattered bits of information picked up in Jerusalem. If the
visits of our Lord to Jerusalem were connected in the minds of
his informants with His appearances at feasts, the imperfect

420 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

recollections of two different persons might easily connect the
same visit with two different feasts; one visit might then be
counted twice in John’s chronology. Again, if John started with
the idea that the Cleansing of the Temple occurred at our Lord’s
first public appearance at the Passover, and subsequently learnt
that He had been present at more than one Passover, he might
infer that the incident had been wrongly placed by Mark. The
greatest difficulty in his chronology would then be explained.
And is it not possible that John had information that Jesus
the very first time He came to Jerusalem, after having at the
Baptism felt the call to Messiahship, vehemently denounced
the Temple traffic? We should certainly expect Him to make
some protest, although on the first occasion He may not have
followed His words by action. Assuming that he had informa-
tion to this effect, John would at once relate it with the prophecy
in Malachi ui. 1-3, “ The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come
to his temple . . . he shall purify the sons of Levi. . .”; he would
then be quite sure that Mark had misplaced the incident. The
a priort principle that a particular action of the Messiah is more
likely than not to show close conformity to some Old Testament
prophecy is certainly not one by which a modern critic would be
swayed in determining the choice between two apparently con-
flicting traditions. But to admit that an author’s estimate of
probabilities is influenced by a priori principles does not prove
that he is indifferent to fact or to evidence. At least, we do not
usually say this of the Tiibingen School because they undertook
to correct the traditional dates of documents or events in the
light of the no less a priori principle that history advances by
“ thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.”” A mistaken conclusion as to
what actually happened on a particular occasion by no means
argues a general indifference to fact. Again, if we suppose that
the source from which John derived the story of Lazarus was
without precise indication of date, but contained a remark that
the priests took alarm at the consequent reputation of our Lord
and His growing influence with the people, it would be very

cx. xiv THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 421

natural for John to infer that the story belonged to Passion
Week, especially as, with the removal of the Cleansing of the
Temple, some other incident adequate to account for the alarm
of the authorities seems required to explain the course of events.

A minor difficulty is solved if we accept the suggestion
(p. 381) that chaps. v. and vi. have got accidentally transposed,
which removes the allusion to an unknown Feast of the Jews
(John v. 1) which has always puzzled commentators, by making
it refer to the Passover mentioned vi. 4; this would combine
into a single visit to Jerusalem what now appears as two.

Apart from these instances the Johannine chronology solves
more difficulties than it raises.

(1) According to the tradition embodied in Matthew, Christ
was born under Herod, who died 4 B.c. According to Luke he
was ‘‘about thirty years old when he began to preach.” According
both to patristic tradition and most modern calculation He was
crucified A.D. 29 or 30. Simple arithmetic shows that these three
data can be reconciled with the 24 years’ ministry implied in
John, but not with the one year which the Synoptics—though
they never actually name a period—are supposed to imply.

(2) In Mark, Jesus is consistently represented as going to
Jerusalem, expecting to be rejected. Similariy Luke’s peculiar
source has “ It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem,”
and again, “If only thou hadst known even in this thy day.” Q
has “ How often would I have gathered thy children...” ?
That is to say, three independent Synoptic sources agree in repre-
senting our Lord as approaching Jerusalem anticipating rejection.
But this surely is not the attitude one would expect of Jesus, who
was wont to hope the best of every man—unless, indeed, it was
based on the experience of failure on one or more previous visits.

(3) Mark explicitly says that the preaching in Galilee which
he records began after John the Baptist had been imprisoned

1 Tt is possible that other accidental transpositions have caused still further
multiplication of the number of visits to Jerusalem in the original text.
2 Lk. xiii. 33; xix. 42; Lk. xiii. 34=Mt. xxiii. 37.

422 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. II

(Mk. i. 14). The author of the Fourth Gospel represents John
as still baptizing as late as the events in John iii. 23. Seeing that
he wrote for a Church which regarded Mark as an authority, this
can hardly be accidental. He intends to indicate that his story
opens at an earlier date than that of Mark. Calculations about
the season of the year implied in “the green grass”? in Mark’s
account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Mk. vi. 39) show
that, unless the event underlying this story is misplaced in Mark,
there must have been another Passover between it and the Last
Passover, as John says was the case. The story of the Mission of
the Twelve implies that the whole group of twelve was not always
with Jesus. It is indeed improbable that He ever went to Jeru-
salem accompanied by the whole band before the last visit ; but
that is no reason why He may not have gone there with one or
two.1 If Peter was not one of these, Mark’s silence on the subject
is explicable. It is at any rate a remarkable coincidence—if it is
mere coincidence—that John never mentions Peter in connection
with Jerusalem until the last week. The incident of the appar-
ently prearranged signs by which the disciples would recognise
the man who would take them to the upper chamber (Mk. xiv. 13)?
is slightly more intelligible if Jesus had in Jerusalem friends,
gained on previous visits, to whom the Twelve were unknown.
(4) The majority of scholars have for a long while been agreed
that, on grounds of intrinsic probability, the representation of
John, that the Crucifixion took place on the morning of the day
when the Passover was killed, is to be preferred to that of the
Synoptics, which identify the Last Supper with the Passover. It
is unnecessary to repeat the familiar arguments as to the improb-
ability of secular business like the Arrest, the Trials, the buying
of spices, etc., being possible during the most solemn twenty-
four hours of the Festival. The language of Paul, ‘ Christ our
Passover is sacrificed for us . . .,” has been regarded as having

1 Cf. C. A. Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus, p. 40 ff. (T. & T. Clark,
1904).

® Matthew's πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα, xxvi. 18, makes still more clear the point that
it was a specified person.

-- ὦ

cx. xiv THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 423

supplied John with a dogmatic motive for correcting the Synoptic
date. But if, on other grounds, we accept John’s date as cor-
rect, then Paul’s language becomes collateral evidence for the
Johannine story. Again, the words in Luke, “ With desire I
desired to eat this Passover, but I shall not eat it . . .,” suggest,
though they do not quite compel, the view that in his source the
Last Supper was conceived as taking place on the day before the
Passover. If so, Luke, in conflating his special source with the
Marcan tradition, has misunderstood and obscured its original
purport. In that case John and Proto-Luke were in agreement,
but John preserves the original tradition in a clearer form.
Personally I incline to think that the Johannine incident of the
Washing of the Disciples’ Feet by Jesus at the Last Supper is
similarly authentic. The saying, “I am among you as one that
serves,” Lk. xxii. 27, is an echo of it which has attracted to this
context the saying about the kings of the Gentiles which Mk.
x. 42 gives in its true historical setting.

But to talk at all of comparing the Johannine and Synoptic
chronology is really unmeaning. There is no “ Synoptic chron-
ology.” Matthew, in the second half of his Gospel, follows the order
of Mark; in the first half, while copying the narrative of Mark
closely, he rearranges the order of events in a way which shows,
either that he was completely indifferent to chronology, or that he
did not regard the order of incidents in Mark as chronological.
Luke takes Proto-Luke as his base, and—apparently without
appreciably altering the relative order of events in either of his
sources—fits extracts of Mark into the scheme of that document.
But there is no reason for supposing that Luke possessed, or
thought that he possessed, any key to the original order of the
sayings andeventsherecords. The “order” which he speaks of in
his preface does not mean chronological order so much as literary
form, or, as we should say, “construction.” 1 The resultant
scheme is a threefold division of the Gospel into a Galilean, a

1 Cf. Foakes-Jackson and Lake, op. cit. ii. p. 505; also F. H. Colson, J.7.S.
xiv. p. 62 ff.

424 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. TI

Samaritan, and a Judaean section. The long non-Marcan section,
Lk. ix. 51-xviii. 14, is somewhat vaguely represented by Luke as a
series of wanderings through Samaria in the general direction of
Jerusalem. The notion that Luke thinks of it as the journey
through Peroea which Mark records is a misconception.*

To speak, then, of a Synoptic chronology, as though there were
a three-to-one agreement against John, is quite misleading. The
chronology of the Life of Christ is simply a question of Mark
against John. Now of the last journey to Jerusalem, and the
events of Passion Week, Mark presents a clear, detailed, and
coherent account; and this, dealing with the events of, at the
outside, three weeks, occupies about one-third of the whole Gospel.
The rest of the Gospel is clearly a collection of detached stories—
as indeed tradition affirms it to be; and the total number of
incidents recorded is so small that the gaps in the story must be
the more considerable part of it. Mark probably had informa-
tion which enabled him roughly to fix the position of certain
outstanding incidents like Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi,
but the term chronology is really a misnomer in connection with
a work of this character.

John is the first and the only one of the Evangelists who
attempts a chronology. It may be that his chronology is not a
very good one—but it is the only one we have. Chronology is a
very difficult art. Success in it depends, not only on the existence
of abundant evidence, but also on complicated calculations, syn-
chronisms, and inferences. In antiquity it was even more difficult
than it is now ; and it is only to be expected that John’s pioneer
attempt at a chronology of our Lord’s life contains serious
inaccuracies. But to admit that is a very different matter from
saying that it is a wholly ideal construction.

ΕἾΝΑΙ, Resutts
The Gospels of Mark, Luke and John form, it would seem, a
series—Luke being dependent on Mark, and John on both the
1 Cf. p. 203; also J. Moffat, Introd. to Ν.Τ'. p. 273.

ox. xiv THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND SYNOPTICS 425

others. This conclusion of documentary analysis is confirmed by
its correspondence with a parallel evolution in the doctrinal
emphasis in the several Gospels. Here also Mark, Luke and John
form a progressive series the characteristic direction of which is a
tendency to make more and more of the idea of Christianity as the
universal religion, free from the limitations of its Jewish origin,
and, along with this, to lay less and less stress on the original
Apocalyptic expectation of an immediate visible Return of the
Master. The Fourth Gospel is thus the climax reached in the
development of theology in the New Testament towards the
naturalisation of Christianity in the Hellenic world.

Matthew, on the other hand, though even more indebted to
Mark, represents an independent line of development. In regard
-hoth to the universalistic tendency and to the Apocalyptic Hope,
Matthew, as compared with Mark, shows a movement in the
reverse direction to that shown in Luke and John. Matthew in-
troduces, doubtless from his Jerusalem source, sayings of a dis-
tinctly Judaistic and legalistic character. At times he even modifies
the actual text of Mark in this direction—adding, for example,
the demurrer “I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House
of Israel ” to Mark’s account of the Syro-Phoenician woman, and
the words “neither on a Sabbath”’ in the little Apocalypse.t Still
more noticeably he goes out of his way to elaborate the apocalyptic
detail in the same discourse and to emphasise the expectation of
a visible Parousia within the lifetime of the Twelve.?

The dependence of the Fourth Gospel upon two earlier Lives
of Christ, neither of which purports to be the work of eye-witnesses,
would make it hard to accept the tradition which ascribes it to
an apostle, even if that ascription involved no other difficulties.
On the other hand, as we have seen, the masterful way in which

1 Mt. xv. 24-- ΜΚ. vii. 26, possibly from a parallel source, cf. p. 260 above;
Mt. xxiv. 20=Mk. xiii. 18.

2 Cp. the additions Mt. xxiv. 30; xxiv. 31 (the trumpet); other instances
are given in Ozford Studies, 428 ff. The immediacy of the Parousia is brought
out in three passages in Matthew, of which one is absent from, the others are
less emphasised in the nearest parallel in, Mark: Mt. x. 23; xxiv. 29; xxvii. 64.
See the discussion p. 520 ff. below.

426 THE FOUR GOSPELS pr, ΠῚ

the author deals with the narrative of his predecessors—considered
in connection with his evident familiarity with the topography of
Jerusalem and Rabbinic usage, and also with the fact that in some
points his corrections have a look of superior authenticity—is
much easier to explain on the hypothesis that he was a personage
who possessed, and was recognised as possessing, a claim to write
with independent authority.

It is with these conclusions in mind that the study of the
purpose and the authorship of the Gospel must be approached.

ΧΥ
SYNOPSIS
THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP

Tur BreLovep DiscreLe

The verse, xxi. 24, which asserts that the Gospel was written
by the Beloved Disciple, is not by the original author; it represents
a later, and probably erroneous, identification.

The Beloved Disciple is the Apostle John idealised ; the writer
of the Gospel a disciple of the Apostle.

JOHN THE ELDER

The writer of the Epistles 2 and 3 John styles himself ‘“‘ The
Elder”: Papias speaks of an “ Elder John, a disciple of the Lord.”
The hypothesis that this John was the author of the Gospel adequately
explains the phenomena of the internal evidence; it also accords
with (a) evidence that John the Apostle was martyred in Jerusalem ;
(6) the silence of Ignatius as to his connection with Ephesus ; (c) the
hesitation in some quarters to accept the Gospel as Apostolic. The
tradition that the Apostle lived in Ephesus easily explicable. Not
only John the Elder but also John the Seer (who wrote the Apoca-
lypse) lived in Asia; the works of both were regarded as inspired,
and by the end of the second century inspiration and apostolicity
had become almost convertible terms.

Tue HESITATION oF ROME

Hippolytus, c. 200, wrote a Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse
of John. A defence implies an attack. Evidence that the attack
came not from heretics outside but from a conservative group
within the Church. A scrutiny of the argument of Irenaeus against
those who would make the Gospels either more or less than four
in number leads to a similar conclusion. Similarly the Muratorian

427

428 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

fragment on the Canon goes out of its way to defend the Fourth
Gospel.

The hesitation of Rome explicable from the popularity of the
Gospel with Gnostics and a suspicion of the Logos doctrine. Prob-
ability that Justin Martyr (who was converted in Ephesus) recon-.
ciled the Roman Church to the Logos doctrine. Justin quotes the
Fourth Gospel sparingly, as if it was an authority more valued by
himself than by his readers. Possibility that, though he attributed
the Apocalypse to the Apostle, he regarded the Gospel as the work
of the Elder.

TRENAEUS AND PoLycaRP

The letter of Irenaeus to Florinus conclusive evidence of a
connection between Polycarp of Smyrna and John “the disciple of
the Lord.” Was this John the Apostle or the Elder? Considera-
tions pointing to the Elder are: (1) Irenaeus heard Polycarp preach
as a boy, but was probably not a personal pupil. (2) Irenaeus
always calls John “the disciple of the Lord,” never, except by
implication, ‘‘the Apostle.” (3) For apologetic reasons he would
wish to ignore the distinction between the two Johns, supposing he
had heard of it. (4) Irenaeus states that Polycarp was consecrated
Bishop by “ Apostles’? — doubtless meaning John —the Eastern
tradition contradicts this. (5) The Apostolic Constitutions, possibly
drawing on the traditional local list of Bishops, names Timothy and
a John, other than the Apostle, as the first two Bishops of Ephesus.

Papras

Conflict between the evidence of Irenaeus and Eusebius (who
quotes Papias against Irenaeus) as to whether Papias was “‘ a hearer ”
of the Apostle or of the Elder John. Eusebius is undoubtedly right ;
but how account for Irenaeus’ mistake? Explicable on the hypo-
thesis that Papias quoted the Fourth Gospel, which Irenaeus
accepted as Apostolic, under the title “The Memoirs of the Elder.”
Arguments in support of this hypothesis.

PoLycRATES OF HPHESUS

Ambiguities in his evidence. Fragments of a tradition originally
appropriate to the Elder survive in a (probably recent) identification
of him with the Apostle.

ANTIOCH

The Gospel accepted under the name of John and as inspired
Scripture (doubtless, therefore, the Apostle is meant) by 180. Prob-
ably known to Ignatius, but by him not accepted as Apostolic.

cH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 429

Date oF WRITING

John the Elder had “‘ seen the Lord.” Supposing he did so as
a boy of twelve, he would be 77 years of age in a.pD. 95. The Epistle
1 John implies that the writer was a very old man. Works of genius
have often been produced at a great age ; no difficulty in dating the
Gospel a.p. 90-95.

The Logos theology not inconsistent with this date.

THe AUTHOR’S SIGNATURE

Undoubted genuineness οἵ 3 John—by the Elder (author also of
2 John). Ifthe Gospel and the Epistles are not by the same writer,
then we must assume two—one of whom is the pupil of the other.
Reasons for rejecting this assumption. The two epistles of the
Elder are thus the author’s signature to the Gospel and the first
epistle.

CHAPTER XV
THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP

THE BELoveD DIscIPLE

From the literary point of view the way in which the Fourth
Gospel ends is curious. Elsewhere it is written in the third
person, but in the last two verses this suddenly changes to the
first person. What is still more strange, while in the last verse
but one the person is in the plural, in the last verse of all it is
in the singular.

xxl. 24. “ This is the disciple which beareth witness of these
things, and wrote these things ; and we know that his witness is
true.”

25. “* And there are also many other things which Jesus did
the which if they should be written every one, J suppose that even
the world itself would not contain the books that should be written.”

We are compelled to ask, Did these verses stand in the Gospel
when it left the hands of the original author ?

In the note in his Commentary, Westcott—in matters of criti-
cism the most cautious and conservative of scholars—answers No.

“These two verses appear to be separate notes attached to
the Gospel before its publication. The form of verse 24 con-
trasted with that of xix. 35 shows conclusively that it is not
the witness of the Evangelist. The words were probably added
by the Ephesian elders, to whom the preceding narrative had
been given both orally and in writing. The change of person in
verse 25 (I swppose compared with we know) marks a change of

authorship.”
430

ou. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 431

It is notable that the second of the two verses is omitted by
the Codex Sinaiticus, and a double change of person in three
successive verses is so remarkable that—especially as the verse
is merely a somewhat magniloquent repetition of the simple and
natural ‘“‘ Many other signs did Jesus . . . which are not written
in this book” of xx. 30—we are perhaps justified in holding
on the evidence of this single MS. that it is an addition by a very
early scribe. But for the omission of verse 24, which is the one
that guarantees the authorship, there is no such MS. evidence.

But why, we ask, at the time when the Gospel was first published,
was any guarantee by the Ephesian elders of its authorship and
general credibility required? Early Christian writings (cf. p. 221)
were not addressed to a general reading public, but to particular
communities within a secret society frowned upon by the Law.
The Gospels of Matthew and Mark are anonymous; so are the
three epistles which appear to be by the author of the Fourth ;
these obviously were addressed to a church or churches in which
the prestige and competence of the author were sufficiently well
known. Τί, then, in the Fourth Gospel we find an addition to
the text, admittedly not by the original writer, which makes a
definite statement as to authorship, is it not more probable that
it was made at some later date, perhaps also in some other
locality, and was intended to assert a view as to the authorship
of the book from which certain persons at that time or place
dissented ? And that such dissent did exist in the second century
we shall see shortly. That being so, the addition of the words
“this is the disciple which . . . wrote these things” is to be
interpreted as an attempt to settle a debated question, and is,
therefore, additional evidence of the existence of doubts in regard
to the authorship of the Gospel.

Apart from these last two verses—which, on the admission
of so conservative a scholar as Westcott,’ cannot be by the
original author—there is not a word in the whole Gospel to suggest
that it is, or claims to be, by the Apostle John. Quite the

1 T note that Bishop Gore accepts Westcott’s view, Belief in Christ, p. 106 n.

432 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

contrary. That John should speak of himself, in contra-
distinction from all the rest of the Apostles, as “ the disciple whom
Jesus loved,” would be, to say the least of it, remarkable. But
it would not be unnatural for a devoted follower and admirer of
one particular Apostle so to speak of his idealised master. If the
Fourth. Gospel had come down to us, as originally published,
without the last two verses, every one everywhere would have
taken it for granted that the author intended to distinguish
himself from the Beloved Disciple, and we should have inferred
that its author stood in much the same kind of relation to the
Beloved Disciple as Mark, the author of another of our Gospels,
stood to Peter.

But if the verse (xxi. 24) which identifies the actual author
with the Beloved Disciple is a later insertion, it is open to us to
surmise that it is a mistaken identification—indeed, in face of the
phenomena discussed in the last chapter, it is hard to suppose
that it is correct. We are, then, almost compelled to the con-
clusion that the Gospel was written, not by the Beloved Disciple
himself, but by some one to whom that disciple was an object of
reverent admiration.

There has been a great battle of the critics as to whether
the Beloved Disciple is intended as a synonym for the Apostle
John, the son of Zebedee, or whether he is meant to be understood
as a purely ideal figure—the perfect disciple who alone really
understood the mind of Christ. Our previous discussion of the
author’s conception of the relation of the historical and the
eternal in all things concerning the earthly life of Christ makes it
reasonable to suppose that he intended both. It would have seemed
to him that the Revelation of the Word made flesh would not
have been completed unless at least one of the Twelve had under-
stood it. The Beloved Disciple, then, will be an Apostle; but he
is that Apostle transfigured into the ideal disciple. And that the
Apostle the author had in mind was John can hardly, I think,
admit of serious doubt. Peter, James and John in the Marcan
story repeatedly appear as a kind of inner circle of the Twelve—

OH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 433

and the disciple that understood must have been one of these.
And since the Beloved Disciple was one whom the Church had
expected to tarry till the Lord’s coming, James is ruled out by
his early death ; while Peter’s infirmities are too conspicuous a
feature in the tradition to make it possible for him to be selected as
the ideal ; only John is left.

There is indeed no reason why the author of the Gospel should
not in his youth have come into personal contact with John, who,
even if he was martyred (as some suggest) shortly after the cut-
break of the Jewish War in a.D. 66,1 may well have been the last
survivor of the Twelve. If so, one of his temperament might
easily come to conceive a mystical veneration for the aged
Apostle who had leaned on the Lord’s breast at the Last Supper.
We need not suppose that he had seen a great deal of John, or
that more than a small number of the facts recorded in the
Gospel were derived from him; most of them, indeed, we have
seen reason to believe came to him by way of Mark or Luke.
We need only postulate for him a connection with the Apostle and
an attitude to his memory comparable to that of Irenaeus
towards Polycarp. A brief and, as it seemed in the halo of later
recollection, a wonderful connection with the Apostle—perhaps
also a few never-to-be-forgotten words of Christ derived from his
lips—would make the attitude towards the Beloved Disciple
expressed in the Gospel psychologically explicable.

JOHN THE ELDER

A critical study of the evidence afforded by the Gospel itself
has led us to the conclusion that the author, while making no
pretence of being an Apostle, did nevertheless claim to write with
authority, that he was certainly familiar with Jerusalem and
probably with a cycle of tradition current there, and lastly that
he may have had some personal connection with the Apostle
John.

1 Cf. B. W. Bacon, op. cit. p. 127 ff., and R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St.
John (T. ἃ T. Clark, 1920), xlv. ff.
2 F

484 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

Now we learn from Papias of the existence of a person who
seems to fulfil all these conditions—the Elder John. The Elder
John he describes, in the passage quoted above (p. 18), as a
“disciple of the Lord.” Since Aristion and the Elder John are
distinguished by this lescription, both from the Apostles and
from the generality of less well-informed Christians, it must at
least imply that they had seen the Lord in the flesh. In another
passage (quoted p. 17 above) Papias speaks of “ the Elder ”
without the addition of the name John, as if the title—the Elder,
par excellence—was in some way distinctive.

It is impossible not to connect the evidence of Papias with
that afforded by the three Epistles of John, which in style and
point of view are so closely connected with one another and with
the Fourth Gospel.

Dr. Charles, in his Commentary on Revelation, gives an analysis
of the language of the Epistles and the Gospel,! which materially
strengthens the impression made by a first reading that the
three Epistles and the Gospel are by the same author. It is
thus of extraordinary interest to note that in the second and
third Epistles the writer styles himself “the Elder,” as though
that were a sufficient and a distinctive title, and in the first he
writes to the Church as an old man to his “ little children,” and
claims emphatically to have seen with his own eyes the Word
incarnate. 1 John 111. 7; 1. 1-3.

If the only evidence available were that afforded by the
Gospel itself and by the fragments of Papias, the hypothesis that
it was written by John the Elder would satisfy all the data.
But there remains to be considered the ecclesiastical tradition—
of which the addition “‘ This is the disciple . . . which wrote these
things” (xxi. 24) is perhaps the earliest evidence—that the
author was the Apostle John who lived on in Ephesus until
(says Irenaeus) the reign of Trajan.

But tradition is not quite unanimous on the point. Accord-
ing to the “ De Boor fragment ” of Philip of Side, Papias in his

1 Op. cit. i. p. xxxiv. ff.

cH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 435

second book says that John the Divine and James his brother
were killed by the Jews; and the Syriac Martyrology states that
he was martyred in Jerusalem, which, if a fact, must have
happened before a.p. 70. And it would certainly give an added
point to the story in Mk. x. 35 ff. of the request made by those two,
with the prophecy by our Lord, “ The cup that I drink ye shall
drink,” if, at the time when Mark wrote, the prophecy had been
fulfilled. Certain minor pieces of evidence pointing in the same
direction are conveniently summarised by Dr. Charles.2 The
amount of evidence that can be summoned in support of the
tradition of an early martyrdom of John is not considerable ;
but of two alternative traditions the one which would be the
more acceptable would be likely to prevail. Homines facile, id
quod volunt, credunt esse, and the wonder is that any evidence at
all should survive of a tradition apologetically so inconvenient
as that of John's early death.

This positive evidence is further supported by two pieces of
negative evidence of a somewhat striking kind. (a) Of the seven
letters written by Ignatius of Antioch on his road to martyrdom,
two are addressed to the Apostolic Sees of Ephesus and Rome.
The letter to Rome contains a possible allusion to the connection
of that church with Peter and Paul; the letter to the Ephesians
goes out of the way to emphasise their special claim to be an
Apostolic foundation on account of the peculiar affection shown
to them by Paul. If Ignatius had ever heard of a long residence
and death of the Apostle John at Ephesus, it is very remarkable
that he should make no allusion to it in that particular context.
(b) The hesitation, in some quarters, of which I shall speak

1 Similarly George Hamartolus, a late chronographer, writes: “ Papias,
bishop of Hierapolis, who was an eye-witness of this, in the second book of
the Oracles of the Lord says that he (John) was killed by the Jews, and thereby
evidently fulfilled, with his brother, Christ’s prophecy concerning them .. .,”
and proceeds to quote Mark x. 39. It is probable that George is here dependent
on Philip of Side, but may have quoted him more fully than the De Boor
fragment, which is possibly an abbreviated excerpt. Both passages are printed
in full among the “‘ Fragments of Papias”’ in Lightfoot and Harmer, 518 f.

2 Op. cit. vol. i. p. xlv. ff.

436 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

shortly, to accept the Ephesian Gospel as Apostolic, is hard to
explain if all the world knew that the Apostle John was still
living there in A.D. 96.

The tradition that the Apostle John lived and wrote in Asia is
presupposed in the Gnostic romance known as the Acts of John,
which Dr. James thinks may be as early as 150. It is also implied
in the precedence given to John in the Eprstula A postolorum (which
places him first in the list of the Apostles) which may possibly
be no later than that date. But the tradition is one of which
the origin is easily explained. John the Seer, the author of the
Apocalypse—as was pointed out as long ago as Dionysius of
Alexandria (248-265)—must have been quite a different person
from the author of the Gospel, but he wrote from Patmos, and
addressed his work to the seven churches of Asia; and this John
is already identified with the Apostle by Justin Martyr. And if
John the Elder also lived in Asia and wrote the Gospel which,
already by a.D. 180, was generally regarded as inspired, it would
be almost impossible for tradition to keep these two Asian Johns
distinct from one another and from the Apostle of the same name ;
more especially in an age when the double conflict with Gnosticism
and Montanism was forcing the Church to make inspiration and
Apostolic authorship more and more nearly identical terms.

Tue Hesitation oF Rome

The view that the Fourth Gospel was the work of the Elder
John explains more easily than any other theory the evidence
of a certain hesitation in accepting the Gospel as authentic in
certain quarters. This otherwise complicated problem becomes
comparatively simple if, pursuing the clue previously found
fruitful, we study separately the history of the reception of the
Gospel in each of the Apostolic Sees—Antioch, Ephesus and
Rome. We may begin with Rome.

The most notable theologian of the Church of Rome during
the period αν. 190 to 235 was Hippolytus. On his death a

cH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 437

statue of him seated was set up, and this was discovered in an old
cemetery at Rome in 1551, and is still preserved in the Lateran
Museum. On the chair of the statue is inscribed a list of his
numerous works. Near the beginning of the list is mentioned a
“ Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John.” ! No one
defends what nobody attacks. We must, then, infer that there
were people who rejected both. The only question is, were these
heretics or members of the Church ὁ Hippolytus was a vigorous
opponent of the Montanists and the various Gnostic sects. But
the Montanists not only accepted but attached special value to
the Fourth Gospel, for it was their authority for the doctrine of
the Paraclete, whom they believed to be specially manifested in
their own prophet. Most of the Gnostics accepted the Fourth
Gospel. Heretics who, like Marcion, rejected it, rejected other
Gospels also. The Ebionites accepted only Matthew, other
heretics only Mark. But, so far as we are aware, there was no
heretical sect which in any special way impugned the Fourth
Gospel. But in Hippolytus’ Defence the Fourth Gospel and
Apocalypse are classed together; there is thus a slight pre-
sumption that the attack on both books was made by the same
persons. And so far as the Apocalypse is concerned, we do know
of a very vigorous attack made on it inside the Church by an
apparently orthodox Roman presbyter named Gaius.

Gaius, in this respect like Hippolytus himself, was a zealous
opponent of the Montanist heresy ; and, in a book against the
Montanist leader Proclus, he went so far as to say that the
Apocalypse was written, not by the Apostle, but by his notorious
opponent the heretic Cerinthus. Two late fourth-century writers,
Epiphanius and Philaster, both of whom had access to works of
Hippolytus now lost, speak of persons who ascribed both the
Gospel and the Apocalypse to Cerinthus, and who, among other
arguments to discredit the Gospel, stressed the discrepancy in
order between it and the Synoptics. Epiphanius names these

1 ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάνην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως. Cf. Lightfoot, Clement,

ii. p. 325.

438 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. UII

persons Alogi. In Greek this is a quite tolerable pun—since
ἄλογοι may be translated equally well by “ Anti-Logosites ”’ or
“ Trrationalists.”” Obviously they did not call themselves by
such a nickname, and we never hear of them anywhere else either
by that or any other name. This suggests that they were not a
sect at all, but merely a group within the Church who held their
own private opinions on a subject in regard to which no one view
was yet regarded as de fide. Whether Gaius himself was one of
these is an obscure point hotly debated; but, if so, the opposition to
the Gospel can be definitely localised in orthodox circles in Rome.+

The existence within the Church of mdividuals who rejected
the Fourth Gospel explains the emphasis laid by Irenaeus in the
passage already quoted (p. 8) on his argument for the a priort and
eternal necessity that the Gospels could be neither more nor less
than four. The main object of this elaborate construction is to
establish a major premiss from which can be drawn later on the
conclusion that “ all those are vain, unlearned and also audacious,
who represent the aspects of the Gospel as being either more in
number than four or fewer.” He proceeds to condemn Marcion
who had only one Gospel; Valentinus who admitted more than
four ; and, along with them, certain others whom he does not
name. These, he complains, “in order to make void the gift
of the Spirit which in the last times at the Father’s good pleasure
was poured out on mankind, do not admit that aspect presented
by John’s Gospel in which the Lord promised that he would send
the Paraclete ; but set aside at once both the Gospel and the
Prophetic Spirit.” Since by the phrase about “‘ the Prophetic
Spirit’ he evidently means the Apocalypse, it seems that
Trenaeus, like his pupil Hippolytus, had occasion to defend both
the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John. But Irenaeus makes it
clear that the motive of the opposition to both these works was
hostility to the idea of the outpouring of the Spirit in the latter
days, 1.6. to the Montanist movement towards which, at any rate

1 The case for and against Gaius being an Alogian may be studiea in
B. W. Bacon, op. cit. chap. ix.; and V. H. Stanton, op. cit. Part i., p. 239 ff.

cH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 439

in its more moderate form, he himself had considerable sympathy.
Thus, whether or not Gaius himself rejected the Fourth Gospel,
it is fairly clear that others who rejected both it and the
Apocalypse did so because the doctrine of the Paraclete in the
one, and of the Millennium in the other, seemed to give support
to Montanist extravagances. But the objectors are nowhere
accused of being heretics, and it is implied that they recognised
the other three Gospels ; and, as no sect is known which accepted
these and rejected John, we should naturally conclude that they
were a party inside the Church.

We turn now to the Muratorian fragment onthe Canon. This
may well, as Lightfoot argues,” be from another work of Hippolytus.
In any case it seems to represent the official view of the Roman
Church about a.p. 200.

In this document the Gospel of Luke, about which no one at
Rome had any doubts, is dismissed in seven lines; but twenty-
five are given to John. Of Luke it is asserted “neither did he
(«pse) see the Lord in the flesh and he too (idem), as he was able
to ascertain (wrote).’’ Of what the author said about Mark only
the last line is preserved, which reads, “ but at some he was
present, and so he set them down”’; but we must infer from the
emphatic ipse and idem in his somewhat disparaging remarks
about Luke that they are more or less a repetition of a similar
statement made about Mark, another Gospel accepted at Rome.
But while he goes out of his way to insist that Mark and Luke are
not eye-witnesses, in speaking of John the emphasis is all the
other way: “It was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles,
that John was to write all things in his own name, and they
were all to certify. And, therefore, though various elements are
taught in the several books of the Gospel, yet it makes no differ-
ence to the faith of believers, since by one guiding Spirit all things
are declared in all of them... . A little later, quoting the
opening words of the first Epistle of John, the writer proceeds :
“For so he declares himself not an eye-witness and a hearer only,

1 Cf Bacon, op. cit. p. 241. 2 Clement, ii. p 411 f.

440 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

but a witness of all the marvels of the Lord in order.” Surely all
this looks like a reply to arguments that the Fourth Gospel was
not by an Apostle on account of its divergences, especially in the
matter of order, from the Synoptics, which Epiphanius tells us
were put forward by the Alogi. The author says, in effect: there
are no real contradictions between the Gospels; and if they
differ in the matter of order, John is to be preferred, since he was
an eye-witness, while the others were not.

At Rome. then, by the end of the second century, the Fourth
Gospel was accepted by the Church; but there had been
opposition. Some of the opposition had been unintelligent—
the attribution of the Gospel and Apocalypse to Cerinthus is
grotesque. It had not denied the antiquity, only the apostolicity,
of the works in question; for Cerinthus was a contemporary
of John. And the opposition was from a group of orthodox
and conservative leanings; for it was not only anti-Montanist
in intention, it was equally (since the Gnostic Cerinthus was to
these zealots a name of reproach) anti-Gnostic. All the same,
the fact that it was possible to attribute the Fourth Gospel to
an arch-heretic and yet to regard oneself as championing ortho-
doxy is eloquent. It could not yet have been one of the Gospels
which the Roman Church accepted as authoritative.

Some hesitation of the Roman Church to accept the Gospel
is less remarkable than would at first sight appear. It was
partly the result of the cautiously conservative attitude which
it habitually adopted in such matters, and of which its attitude
towards the Epistle to the Hebrews—which was known at Rome
by A.D. 96 but not accepted as Pauline till the fourth century—
is the classical example. But it was probably more affected by
a general suspicion of the traditions of the Church of Ephesus,
due to the fact that the Ephesians were in the habit of quoting
Apostolic authority for a date and method of observing Easter
which Rome believed to be the reverse of Apostolic. Strange,
too, as it seems to us, the doctrine of the Logos would by
some be regarded as a hazardous speculation, savouring

CH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 44]

of that Gnostic theory of Emanations which threatened to
destroy belief in the Unity of God, against which the main
battle of the Church was directed in the second century. And
it cannot be said that the phrase δεύτερος θεός, “a second
God,” used by Justin Martyr, the great champion of the Logos
doctrine at Rome, was altogether reassuring. Yet again, the
fact that the Fourth Gospel was highly appreciated by Gnostics
would tell against it. Heracleon, the Valentinian, is known to
have written a commentary upon it in Rome about a.p. 160.
Thus when, a little later, the Gospel and the Apocalypse became
the principal authorities quoted by the Montanists in support
of their view that their own prophets had a new revelation from
the Paraclete which superseded that of the official Church,
we can understand the desire of some conservatives to discredit
them completely.

There is a good deal to be said for the hypothesis that it was
Justin Martyr who first effectively commended both the Fourth
Gospel and the Logos doctrine to the acceptance of the Roman
Church. Justin had been converted to Christianity at Ephesus,
and his whole philosophy is based on the doctrine of the Logos.
But, apart from the Logos doctrine, he has only two quite
certain, along with half a dozen more doubtful, reminiscences
of the Fourth Gospel. But of Matthew and Luke he has over
a hundred reminiscences or quotations ; and even to that small
part of Mark which has no parallel in either Matthew or Luke
he has two allusions. Moreover, there are cases where he quotes
to support his argument texts from the Synoptics very badly
adapted to prove his point, while forbearing to quote sayings
of Christ recorded in the Fourth Gospel which would have been
quite conclusive. In fact, he acts like a modern apologetic
writer trying to establish the pre-existence of Christ, but, in
deference to critical objections, attempting to do so without
reference to the Fourth Gospel.

Justin quotes the Apocalypse, and definitely refers to it as
the work of the Apostle John, but we may not infer that he

442 THE FOUR GOSPELS rr ΠῚ

attributed the Gospel to the same author. In his First Apology
he refers to the “‘ Memoirs of the Apostles which are called
Gospels,” and in the Dialogue with Trypho! he speaks of the
“Memoirs which were composed by them (the Apostles) and
their followers.” This certainly would be an appropriate
description of the four Gospels known by the names of the two
Apostles, Matthew and John, and two followers of Apostles,
Mark and Luke. But in another context he gives two statements,
both of which are found in Mark and one in Mark only, as being
derived from the “ Memoirs of Peter” (cf. p. 447). If, then,
that was the title by which he referred to the Gospel of Mark,
the phrase ‘Memoirs of the Apostles and their followers ”
would be equally applicable to Gospels attributed to the two
Apostles Matthew and Peter and to the two followers of Apostles,
Luke and John the Elder. But whatever view we take on this
point we are not entitled to infer from Justin that all four Gospels
were as yet recognised in the Church of Rome. Justin is writing
a defence of Christianity in general, and is not concerned with
local diversities ; hence his language would be perfectly justified
if, in his time, John was publicly read in Ephesus but not at
Rome. Moreover, in view of the statement, quoted in the Acts of
his Martyrdom, as to his paucity of following (to which attention
has been already called (p. 71)) and of the fact that he wore the
gown of the professional philosopher, it is not unlikely that
Justin himself, the Logos doctrine, and the Gospel which he
had imported from Ephesus, were all regarded with some suspicion
by the conservative element in the Roman Church. And it
may have required the glory of martyrdom, as well as a growing
appreciation of the apologetic merits of the Logos doctrine,
completely to dispel this.

ITRENAEUS AND PoLycaRP
We must now consider the evidence with regard to the
reception of the Gospel in Asia. For this we possess three
1 Apol. i. 66; Dial. 103.

wet i tals pin

ee ΞΕ ΨΨΟ.

ee ,“ ὦ

cH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 443

authorities—the fragments of Papias, some statements by
Irenaeus, and the letter of Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, to
Victor of Rome, a.D. 195. Of these much the most important
is the letter of Irenaeus written c. 190 to his old friend Florinus,
then resident in Rome, in which he endeavours to recall him
from Gnostic vagaries to the Apostolic faith that he had learned
from Polycarp in his youth. I extract the important passage :

For I saw thee, when I was still a boy, in lower Asia in company
with Polycarp, while thou wast faring prosperously in the royal
court, and endeavouring to stand well with him. For I distinctly
remember the incidents of that time better than events of recent
occurrence ; for the lessons received in childhood, growing with the
growth of the soul, become identified with it ; so that I can describe
the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to sit when he
discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and his manner
of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses which he
held before the people, and how he would describe his intercourse
with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he
would relate their words.?

The letter to Florinus would be conclusive evidence of the
residence of the Apostle John in Asia, were it not that we know
from Papias, who according to Irenaeus was a contemporary
and friend of Polycarp, that there was at the time another John
who was commonly spoken of as a “disciple of the Lord.” 2 That
being so, we must be cautious of drawing hasty conclusions.
There are a number of considerations which lend plausibility to
the suggestion that Irenaeus may have confused the two Johns.

(1) Clearly, Irenaeus is making the most of his connection with
Polycarp. Hence, in the absence of any express statement to
that effect, we are not entitled to infer that he was in any sense

1 Eus. H.H. v. 20.

2 Prof. Bacon makes two suggestions: (1) that John the Elder never lived
in Asia at all, but in Jerusalem ; (2) that the text of Papias should be emended
so as to make the Elder the disciple, not of the Lord, but of the Apostles.
It is curious that so acute a critic should not perceive how much the acceptance
of these, in themselves improbable, hypotheses intensifies for him the difficulty
of explaining away the evidence of Irenaeus for the residence in Asia of the
Apostle himself.

444 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

a personal pupil of Polycarp. Nor is there any reason to suppose
that Irenaeus was born, or long resident, in Asia; his language
would be justified if he had been at Smyrna on a visit for only
a few months. While there, a keen and earnest lad, he would
have listened, as one of the congregation, to the sermons of the
famous Bishop. Since Papias calls John the Elder a “ disciple
of the Lord,” it is probable that Polycarp used the same phrase.
In opposition to new-fangled Gnostic theories, he would recur
again and again with passionate emphasis to what had been
handed down by this “ John, the disciple of the Lord,” or by
“ John, and the others who saw the Lord.” Polycarp may even
have read passages as from a Gospel by this John—in his extant
letter there is clear allusion to the first epistle and a possible
one to the Gospel. We ask, then, would it ever occur to a lad,
perhaps lately come to Smyrna, that this aged Bishop—a boy’s
chronology is of the vaguest, and every greybeard is a Methuselah
—meant any one but the Apostle? Of course, if Irenaeus had
continued to live in Asia, he must sooner or later have corrected
such an impression. But if, after a short visit, he left for Gaul,
he would have found no one there able to correct his error.

(2) There is a curious fact about Irenaeus, which would be
explained by the hypothesis that he confused the Apostle with
the Elder John. He speaks of John (the son of Zebedee) some
sixteen times as “ the disciple of the Lord,” but only twice, and
that indirectly and by implication, applies to him the title
Apostle. It has been suggested that Irenaeus has ringing in
his head the description by the author of the Fourth Gospel of
himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” But surely in
this description the distinctive element is not the word “ disciple,”
but the characterisation “ whom Jesus loved.” A more natural
explanation of the usage of Irenaeus would be that the actual
words of Polycarp which were printed on his youthful mind were
“ John, the disciple of the Lord.” 1

1 Dr. Burney, indeed (op. cit. p. 138 ff.), argues that Irenaeus recognises
a distinction between the Apostle and the Elder, and attributes the Fourth

CH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 445

(3) The argument that the tradition of the great Churches,
founded by Apostles, guaranteed the doctrine of the Catholic
Church was the very basis of the case against the Gnostics
developed in Irenaeus’ great book. And the tradition of Asia,
guaranteed by Polycarp’s connection with John, was, next to
that of Rome, the strongest point in it. If in boyhood Irenaeus
had taken it for granted that the John whom Polycarp had
spoken of was the Apostle, he had the strongest temptation to
continue to believe it. Thus his evidence is not that of an
impartial, nor, it would appear, of an exceptionally well-informed,
witness. But the less weight we lay on the value of the testimony
of Irenaeus to Apostolic authorship, the greater becomes its
value as evidence for the existence of another John in Asia who
had “seen the Lord”; for only by a confusion in his mind
between two such Johns could so gross a misunderstanding of
Polycarp be explained.

(4) There is, moreover, a definite reason for suspecting that
Trenaeus’ connection with, and knowledge of, Polycarp was
slight. He states quite definitely that Polycarp “received his
appointment in Asia from Apostles as bishop in the Church of
Smyrna.” Says Lightfoot, ‘We need not press the plural,”
and Tertullian—who had read Irenaeus, and is probably de-
pendent on him here—definitely names John. But the Eastern
tradition knows nothing of all this. In the Life of Polycarp
ascribed to Pionius he is ordained deacon by the Bishop of
Smyrna, Bucolus; and on his death-bed Bucolus, admonished
by a vision, indicates him as his successor. And even Bucolus
is not the first Bishop of Smyrna; that distinction belongs to
Gospel to the latter. His argument is attractive, but this interpretation does
not seem to me quite to satisfy all the passages. But I could readily believe
that in the controversies about the Apostolic authorship of the Gospel, which
we know were still recent when Irenaeus wrote, some one had called attention
to a possible distinction between the Apostle and the disciple, and that Irenaeus,
though himself rejecting it, uses language which on either view would be
admissible.

1 Adv. Haer, iii. 3, 4; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. p. 441;
Tertullian, De praescr. 32.

446 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

Strateas (a brother of Timothy), and there were others between
him and Bucolus.! Not much of the Pionian Life of Polycarp is
sober history, but that only makes it the more remarkable that an
author concerned to extol and magnify the Saint in every possible
way should not breathe a word of his connection with the Apostle.

Another and quite different tradition is embodied in the
Apostolic Constitutions, a fourth-century document, but largely
based on older materials, which appears to belong to Caesarea
or Antioch. In this work ? are given the names of the bishops
of all churches appointed in the lifetime of the Apostles, z.e. before
A.D. 100, the reputed date of the death of John.? For Smyrna
the names given are “ Aristo the first, after whom Strateas, the
son of Lois, and the third Aristo.” Since the author can hardly
have been ignorant of the existence of so famous a saint as
Polycarp, we may presume that he supposed Polycarp did not
become Bishop until after the death of John.

Pionius and the author of the Apostolic Constitutions concur
with one another only in the name Strateas; but, if Asiatic
tradition had definitely connected the name of Polycarp with
that of the Apostle John, it is strange that neither of them had
heard of it.. The tendency of later writers is always to enhance,
not to minimise, the connections between the Apostles and the
early Bishops.

(5) It is remarkable that in the same context the Apostolic
Constitutions names as the contemporary Bishops of Ephesus—
Timothy ordained by Paul, and John ordained by John. The
addition “ordained by John” may be due to the “‘ tendency ”
of the author; but, as there is a slight presumption that, at
any rate for the more famous Churches, the author had recourse
to the traditional lists of Bishops (with which the Churches had
already before a.p. 200 begun to provide themselves), it may
be that the Elder had already attained in Asia a position com-
parable to that of Ignatius in Syria a little later. Certainly

1 Lightfoot, Ignatius and Polycarp, vol. i. p. 463.
2 vii. 46, 8. 3 So Jerome, De Vir. Illustr. 9.

OH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 447

2 and 3 John read appropriately as from the Bishop of the
mother, to a daughter, Church.

ῬΑΡΙΑΒ

As regards Papias there are two standing difficulties: (a)
Irenaeus! says that Papias was a hearer of John—meaning
apparently the Apostle—and for this Eusebius takes him to task,
quoting against him the opening words of Papias’ own Preface,
but suggests that Papias may mean that he was a hearer of the
Elder John. But how came Irenaeus to make the mistake ?
(6) Eusebius expressly tells us that Papias used “ testimonies,”
1.6. proof texts, from the First Epistle of John ; if then, as is on
chronological grounds probable, Papias also used the Fourth
Gospel, why does Eusebius say nothing about it ?

Both these difficulties, I believe, can be solved by the simple
hypothesis that Papias used the Fourth Gospel, but quoted it
under the title “‘ Memoirs of the Elder.” Justin Martyr? seems
to quote Mark under the title ‘‘ Memoirs of Peter,” but this was
not the ordinary Roman usage ; otherwise (such was the desire
to attach apostolic authority to books accepted as canonical) it
would certainly have prevailed. But if at Ephesus Mark was
commonly known as the “ Memoirs of Peter,” then “‘ Memoirs
of the Elder ”’ is just the kind of title by which we should expect
the Fourth Gospel to be then known.

Once assume a confusion in the mind of the youthful Irenaeus
between the Apostle and the Elder John, it follows that, when
in later life he first read Papias, he would take it for granted
that on all points connected with the apostolic tradition of
Asia there could be no essential difference between Papias and
his contemporary and friend Polycarp. Hence any reference to
John which Irenaeus found in Papias that was in the slightest
degree ambiguous he would invariably interpret on the assump-
tion that Papias, like Polycarp, when speaking of the personality
or the writings of John, the disciple of the Lord, in Asia, could

1 Adv. Haer. v. 33, 4. 2 Dial. 106 ἀπομνημονεύματα αὐτοῦ (sc. Πέτρου).

448 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

only mean the Apostle and author of the Gospel. Besides,
Irenaeus, we know, accepted 2 John as the work of the disciple
of the Lord who wrote the Gospel, whom he identified with
the Apostle. The author of 2 John styles himself “ the Elder.”
By Irenaeus, then, “the Elder” would naturally be taken as an
alternative title of the Apostle. If, therefore, he found in Papias
a text from the Fourth Gospel quoted as from the ‘“‘ Memoirs of
the Elder,” even if it was clear from the context that Papias
meant the Elder John, it would only strengthen his belief that
the Elder John, so often spoken of by Papias, was identical with
the Apostle, and would only serve to counterbalance the prima
facie meaning of the passage quoted by Eusebius from Papias’
Preface as evidence that there were two Johns.

That Irenaeus did find in Papias an allusion to the Fourth
Gospel by the title ‘“‘ Memoirs of the Elder” is suggested by a
remark of Eusebius. He states that Irenaeus, presumably in
some work now lost, mentions the “Memoirs of a certain
Apostolic Elder,! whose name he passes over in silence.” Probably
the longer phrase ‘“‘ Memoirs of the Apostolic Elder” did not
stand in Papias, or Eusebius would hardly have noticed it as
characteristic of Irenaeus. But since Irenaeus identified the
Elder and the Apostle, he might naturally add the adjective
“apostolic” to Papias’ phrase the “ Memoirs of the Elder ” in
order to indicate that the reference was to the canonical Gospel
written by the Elder who was also an Apostle.

The same hypothesis explains “the Silence of Eusebius.” 2
Volumes have been written on this theme. But suppose Papias
did quote the Fourth Gospel, but with some such words as “ The
Elder in his Memoirs says,” what would Eusebius have made of
it ? Long before Eusebius was born the tradition of the Church

1 ἀπομνημονεύματα ἀποστολικοῦ τινὸς πρεσβυτέρου. H.E. v. 8.

5 In regard to Luke, the silence of Eusebius in regard to any mention by
Papias would be easily explained if Papias—whose allusions to the Synoptics
I suggest ‘were all in the course of a discussion of the discrepancies between
them and John—had alluded to Luke in terms similar to those used in the
Muratorian Canon, emphasising his negative qualifications as an evangelist, in
a way which would be of no interest to Eusebius or his readers.

SS απ

CH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 449

had become firmly established that the author of the Fourth
Gospel was the Apostle John, and also that that Apostle had
lived in Ephesus. Since, then, Eusebius, unlike Irenaeus,
distinguishes the Elder from the Apostle, the last thing that
would occur to him, if he came across an allusion in Papias to
“The Memoirs of the Elder,’ would be to identify this work
with our Fourth Gospel. Eusebius expressly says that Papias
“‘ was evidently a man of very mean capacity to judge from his
own arguments.” If, then, Papias quoted as from the “‘ Memoirs
of the Elder” a passage that occurs in the Fourth Gospel,
Eusebius would have thought it quite in keeping with Papias’
usual stupidity not to recognise a quotation from that Gospel
when he saw one.

We must never forget that in the matter of the identification
of the Elder with the Apostle John, Irenaeus and Eusebius have
precisely opposite interests. Indeed, it is merely in order to
confute Irenaeus on this point that Eusebius quoted the passage
from Papias’ own Preface (printed p. 18). He does this expressly
that he may show that Papias distinguished John the Elder
from John the Apostle, and to demonstrate that Papias was not
“himself a hearer and eye-witness of the Holy Apostles.”
Eusebius had a double motive for this. First, Papias taught
a millenarian doctrine which Eusebius strongly disapproved of ;
it was, therefore, worth while to prove that Papias was not an
actual pupil of the Apostles. Secondly, Eusebius, like most
of the Greek Fathers of his time, disliked the Apocalypse, and
sympathised with the attempt—which, so far as the Greek
Church was concerned, was for a time successful—to exclude
it from the Canon of the New Testament. But that was only
possible if its apostolic authorship could be impugned ; and this
could only be done by accepting the theory of Dionysius of
Alexandria that it was the work, not of the Apostle, but of
another John, who also lived at Ephesus. But this passage in
the Preface of Papias was, by the third century, the only evidence
that could be produced for the existence of such a person.

2ᾳ

450 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠΙ

Irenaeus, on the other hand, revered the Apocalypse and
enthusiastically accepted the millenarianism of Papias. He had,
therefore, no motive for distinguishing the two Johns. On the
contrary, the identification of the John of Asia, of whom Polycarp
and Papias had spoken, with the Apostle had become by his
time the sheet-anchor of the claim of the Churches of Asia against
the Gnostics to be the true depositaries of the apostolic tradition,
as well as the main evidence for the apostolic authorship of the
Fourth Gospel. Incidentally it left the personality of Polycarp
the single link in the chain between himself and the Apostles.
By the time of Eusebius Gnosticism had ceased to be formidable,
and nobody any longer disputed the apostolic authorship of the
Gospel. Thus Eusebius had nothing to lose, and much to gain,
by distinguishing the two Johns. Irenaeus, given that other
passages of Papias admitted of their being identified, would find
some means to explain away his language in the Preface—as
has been done in modern times by no less learned apologists
than Provost Salmon and Dom Chapman.

The view that Papias regarded the Fourth Gospel as the

1 It would seem probable that Irenaeus was mistaken in inferring from
Papias that Papias was himself actually a hearer even of the Elder John.
The language of his Preface clearly implies the contrary, though if the present
tense “‘ what Aristion and the Elder John say’’ (λέγουσι) is to be pressed,
these worthies were still alive when Papias was making his inquiries. And
Eusebius, who had read the rest of Papias’ book, after remarking that he
“says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the Elder John,” adds
- significantly, “ at all events he mentions them frequently by name, and besides,
records their traditions in his writings.” Certainly few of the surviving
fragments of Papias (including an undefined number preserved by Irenaeus
as ‘‘ Sayings of the Elders’), which are mainly crudely millenarian in character,
suggest intimacy with the author of the Fourth Gospel; but we may probably
infer that this material came mainly from Aristion, for it is noticeable that
Papias puts his name first. Indeed Eusebius, if we press the strict meaning
of the language used, appears to imply a distinction between “‘ words of the
Lord ” derived from Aristion and “ traditions ” (? about other matters) derived
from John. After alluding to a materialistic millenarian statement attributed
by Papias to our Lord, he adds that Papias “‘ gives in his own work other
accounts of words of the Lord (τῶν τοῦ κυρίου λόγων διηγήσεις) on the authority
of the aforementioned Aristion ; and traditions (παραδόσεις) of the Elder John.”
Then he at once gives, as an example of such παραδόσεις from the Elder, the
famous statement about the origin of Mark.

CH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 451

work of the Elder John explains another curious fact. Papias
puts the names John and Matthew together at the end of the
list of the Apostles mentioned as those whose teaching he tried
to collect from tradition. Lightfoot argues that this implies
that the names of these two Apostles were connected with
Gospels read in the Church in his day. To my mind it implies
the contrary. ‘For I did not think,” says Papias, “that I
could get so much profit from the contents of books as from
the utterances of a living and abiding voice.” But if Papias
possessed two Gospels, which he felt sure had been actually
written by these Apostles, it would have been too incredibly
foolish of him to suppose that such second-hand oral tradi-
tion as he could himself collect would be a more accurate
record of their teaching. His attitude would be perfectly
rational if he knew of works attributed to Matthew and John
of which the authenticity was a moot point. I have argued
above (p. 19 ff.) that Papias’ allusions to Matthew and Mark
imply that the problem of the divergence between the Gospels
had already within the lifetime of the Elder John given rise
to the question whether the first Gospel, said to be by Matthew,
really gave a reliable account of what Matthew himself taught
about the Parousia, or was only a translation of doubtful accuracy.
If this question was still being discussed when Papias, as a young
man, was collecting traditions, it would be very natural for him
to think that people who had actually met Matthew might settle
the point. But Papias mentions John along with Matthew.
If then we hold that he speaks of Matthew because there was
attributed to that Apostle a Gospel whose complete authenticity
some were inclined to question, must we not say the same thing
of the Gospel of John? Not necessarily, for there was another
book bearing the name of John current in Asia about the author-
ship of which a similar question must have been raised—the
Apocalypse. Its millenarianism was so completely in accordance
with Papias’ own views that there is no doubt that he would
have liked to accept it as apostolic; but he would be aware

452 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

that there were people in Asia who took another view. These
would allege the tradition, which Irenaeus repeats—and which,
since it is almost certainly correct, must ultimately rest on Asian
tradition—that “‘ the vision was seen under Domitian,” and
probably connected this with the other tradition which, accord-
ing to the De Boor fragment, was also referred to by Papias,
that “‘ John and his brother James were killed by the Jews.”
What solution Papias arrived at we do not know; possibly he
may be the ultimate source of the extraordinary suggestion
that John’s exile to Patmos took place before Paul had written
his earliest epistles (1.6. about the year a.D. 50), which appears
in the Muratorian Canon.1_ Perhaps, however, Papias’ reference
to the death of John contained no explicit reference to the time
and place ; in that case it would be open to readers of his book,
who, like Irenaeus, wished to effect an identification of the
author of the Ephesian Gospel with the Apostle John, to suppose
that John was killed by Jews in some riot at Ephesus in his
old age.

PoOLYCRATES OF EPHESUS

This stage had certainly been reached in Asia in the time of
Polycrates, probably several years earlier. Polycrates, Bishop
of Ephesus, in his letter to Victor of Rome a.p. 195, says, ‘“ More-
over John, who was both a martyr and a teacher and who leaned
upon the bosom of the Lord and became a priest wearing the
sacerdotal plate (τὸ πέταλον)---ἢθ fell asleep at Ephesus.” Poly-
crates must have read Papias and probably, like Irenaeus,
identified the two Johns. He doubtless found there, besides the
statement that John and James were put to death by the Jews,
references to the great teacher John who wrote “ the Memoirs ”
and died in Ephesus. The description of John as both martyr
and teacher is a necessary inference from the identification of
the two Johns. Quite possibly in the last part of the sentence

1 “The blessed Apostle Paul himself, following the order of his predecessor
John, writes only by name to seven churches.”

CH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 453

Polycrates is substantially reproducing Papias, only with the
substitution of the words “‘ leaned upon the bosom of the Lord ”
for some phrase of the original like ““ wrote the Memoirs.” But
Polycrates is hardly an unbiassed witness. He is writing to
Victor of Rome, who had just excommunicated the Churches of
Asia for declining to conform to the Roman practice in regard to
the keeping of Easter. Victor, presumably, had touched on the
possession of the tombs of Peter and Paul—we know these were
shown near the Vatican and on the Ostian road before a.p. 200!
—as guaranteeing the apostolic priority of the Roman tradition.
It was hard lines on the Ephesians that Rome should possess—
in repute, if not in fact—the body of their own particular Apostle
Paul. But Polycrates will put up a good fight. “ Great lights,”
he replies, “ have also fallen asleep in Asia . . .” and he proceeds
to claim for Asia the graves of Philip and his daughters, John,
Polycarp, and various lesser worthies. He describes Philip as an
Apostle ; John has no title but is identified as one ‘‘ who leaned
on the bosom of the Lord.’ But it is a curious coincidence that
both Philip the Apostle and Philip the Evangelist, one of the
Seven, should have had daughters who were prophetesses ; and,
if we remember that as late as the Didache the title “‘apostle”’ was
in some parts of the Church applied to many outside the number
of the Twelve, the possibility that tradition has effected a con-
fusion in the name of Philip as well as John is not remote. We
must not forget that Asia and its customs had been on the defen-
sive against Rome for many years. The controversy about the
date of Easter goes back as far as the time of Xystus, who became
Bishop of Rome c. 114. Of one stage in it, the friendly “ agree-
ment to differ” by Polycarp and Anicetus, 155, we are sufficiently
well informed to know that the controversy depended on the
antiquity, and therefore apostolic authority, which could be
claimed for the custom of the several churches. How could Asia
defend its ancient usage against traditions said to derive from
Peter and Paul unless it too could quote Apostles among its
1 Gaius, ap. Euseb. H.H. ii, 25.

464 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

founders ? And it was historic fact that a disciple of the Lord
named John had ruled the Church of Ephesus till Trajan’s days ;
it was indisputable that an apostolic person named Philip had
moved from Palestine to Hierapolis and died there. Ninety
years had elapsed between the death of this John and the
letter of Polycrates, and for more than threescore of these
the claim of Asia to inherit apostolic custom had been at
stake. Tradition always errs on the patriotic side, and in
much less time than that would have contrived to identify
John of Asia with the only Apostle who could compare with
Peter in prestige.

But there is a tell-tale point in Polycrates’ defence. Philip
stands first, then his daughters, then John. Does not this look
like a survival of a traditional order of precedence among the
Saints of Asia which dates from a time when the John in question
was not yet supposed to be an Apostle and was therefore
inferior in years and importance to Philip ?

ANTIOCH

Our evidence for the Church of Antioch in the second century
consists in the Epistles of Ignatius ὁ. 115, and the treatise of
Theophilus, ad Autolycum, ὁ. 181. Theophilus, we have seen
(p. 7), in this, his sole surviving work, quotes the Fourth Gospel
under the name of John as inspired scripture. Bishops of
Metropolitan Sees are not the kind of men who rush after the
latest thing in doctrine ; and in the second century the preserva-
tion of the ancient tradition of the Church against infiltration
from outside was regarded as the supreme function of the Bishop.
We are entitled, then, to infer that at Antioch the Fourth Gospel
had been recognised as an authority, even if not actually
attributed to an Apostle, for a good many years before
Theophilus.

This probability is raised almost to certainty when we study
the reminiscences of the language and thought of the Gospel and

OH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 455

First Epistle already occurring in Ignatius. These are discussed
in all books on the subject ; but their extent and significance can
only be duly weighed if the student has before him, printed in
parallel columns, both those where the actual resemblances are
close and those where they are less so.1_ The conclusion forced
upon my own mind by a survey of the parallels is,that the relation
of Ignatius to the Fourth Gospel is exactly the same as that ascribed
above to Justin Martyr. His whole outlook and his theology
have been profoundly influenced by the study of this Gospel ;
but his use of it suggests that it is not yet recognised in his own
Church as on the same level of authority as Matthew. And this
is just what we should expect if the Gospel had reached Antioch
but was not yet attributed to an Apostle. But seeing that, as
the use made of it by Ignatius shows, John was already known
and valued at Antioch, it is at least probable that Antioch, while
still regarding Matthew as the highest authority, would have
been inclined to accept John as on the same level as Luke. But
once it was accepted and regularly “read” in the Church, in
order to distinguish it from the other Gospels, it must be known
by the name of John. Even in a.p. 120 there would be very few
at Antioch who had ever heard of John the Elder; in another
thirty years there would be none at all. Thus before very long
it would be taken for granted that the John who wrote a work of
such stupendous merit, so long accepted as authoritative by the
Church, was the Apostle. At Rome the Logos doctrine was an
obstacle to some, but at Antioch the doctrine had been welcome
as early as Ignatius. Its apologetic value dawned slowly on the
mind of the prosaic Roman; but it was obvious at once to the
philosophic mystic mind of the Graeco-Oriental East. Thus it
is probable that at Antioch, earlier even than in Ephesus, the
attribution of apostolic authorship would become, first an
accepted belief, then an immemorial tradition.

1 Cf. the passages set out in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers,
and more fully and conveniently in an appendix to Dr. Burney’s Aramaic
Origin of the Fourth Gospel.

456 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

Date oF WRITING

John the Elder is described by Papias as a “ disciple of the
Lord,” by Polycarp as one “‘ who had seen the Lord.” We need
not suppose that he had done much more than “see” Him,
brought perhaps as a boy of twelve years old to Jerusalem by his
father on pilgrimage to the Passover. And he may have been
among the crowd that looked on at the Crucifixion—people in
those days were not careful to keep such sights from children.
In that case, by a.D. 95 he would have reached the age of seventy-
seven. The First Epistle of John was obviously written by a
man of advanced years, who can pass quite naturally from
“brethren” to “my little children” in the same paragraph
(1 Jn. ili. 13 and 18). This last phrase would hardly have been
written by ἃ man under seventy. Again, the Fourth Gospel is
clearly the summary of a lifetime of thought and mystic com-
munion. It is the sort of book that might indeed have been
actually written currente calamo in a mood of inspiration—but it
embodies the concentrated meditation of a lifetime. Great men
sometimes die early, but, when this does not happen, their latter
years are often marked by extraordinary vigour. Gladstone at
the age of eighty introduced the second Home Rule Bill into the
House of Commons in a four hours’ speech not inferior to the
oratorical triumphs of his middle age. Temple did not become
Archbishop of Canterbury till he was seventy-five, and yet had
the energy to leave a permanent mark upon the Church of Eng-
land. Titian, to quote the classic instance, died at the astounding
age of ninety-nine, producing masterpieces to the very end.
There is, then, no difficulty on this score in supposing that John
the Elder wrote the Gospel a.p. 90-95 at the age of seventy or
more.

But is it possible that the theological standpoint of the
Fourth Gospel could have been reached by a.p. 90? At first
sight it seems a far cry from the theology of Thessalonians to
the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel. But so far as the theological

cH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 457

development is concerned, Paul himself has gone almost all the
way in the epistles of the captivity. Hebrews is a stage farther
on than Paul, or, at least, its Christology is more defined—and
Hebrews is fully accepted in Rome, always far slower to move
than Asia, before the time of Clement. The difficulty which
the Logos doctrine is an attempt to meet is one which must
have arisen at a very early date. The ordinary Gentile would
find no intellectual difficulty in worshipping Christ as “ Kyrios ”
or “‘ Lord,” that is, as a Divine Being other than the Supreme—
“Gods many and Lords many ’ were being worshipped in the
various cults of the period. But the Christian was committed
to the Old Testament with its central emphasis on the doctrine,
“The Lord thy God is One.” And the Jew, the bitterest of
all the opponents of the Church, was always there to “rub this

; he was for ever challenging the Christian to explain why
τ ne to worship Christ did not mean the abandoning of
monotheism. What a triumphant reply it was to say, “ But
did not your own great Philo, the most famous Jew of the age,
the man the Jews of Alexandria chose as their spokesman to
Caligula in a.p. 40, at a crisis affecting the whole Jewish race,
himself distinguish between God and the Divine Word? Was
Philo a polytheist ? And if not, then neither are we, when we
worship the Word made flesh.”” The question we have to ask
is, how many years of further theological development must
be allowed to a Church which already possessed Colossians,
Ephesians and Philippians, to reach the point when it could
make this reply ? And the answer is a conditional one—five
hundred years in a community that could produce no single
mind above the commonplace ; five years, if a man of genius
should arise so soon. The category of development, in the slow,
patient, biological sense of that term, does not apply in cases
of this sort. The Logos doctrine is consistent with almost any
date for the Gospel.

458 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1

Toe AUTHOR’S SIGNATURE

There can be no doubt that 3 John is a genuine letter of
some one who was regarded by his contemporaries as a person
of importance. It cannot possibly be a forgery, for it would be
a forgery without motive. It maintains no special doctrine, it
enforces no general moral duty, it tells no interesting story.
It alludes obscurely to a rebuff received by the author from a
certain Diotrephes (who we may infer must have been a local
bishop, since he had the power not merely to exclude from the
Church brethren travelling with recommendations from other
Churches, but also to “cast out” resident members), and
it commends a certain Demetrius who appears to be on the
side of the writer. But no hint is given of the name of the
Church or of the upshot of the affair. That such a document
should have been preserved at all is strange; indeed it is only
explicable if it was cherished as a kind of relic of a person regarded
by some section of the Church with special reverence and
affection.

But the writer of this obviously genuine personal letter calls
himself simply “the Elder ’’—that is its importance, for the
three Epistles and the Gospel of John are so closely allied
in diction, style, and general outlook that the burden of proof
lies with the person who would deny their common authorship.
The minute differences in thought or temper which some scholars
think they have detected between the Gospel and the first
Epistle are far less than those which divide the earlier, middle
and captivity epistles of Paul, or the Dialogues written by
Plato at different periods of his life. It is only a dead mind
that shows no change. In regard, however, to the two epistles
—2 John is obviously by the same hand as 3 John—which
bear the Elder’s name, it is clear that, if they are not by the
same author as the Gospe! then the relation between the two
authors is that of teacher and pupil.

But if they are by two authors, which of the two is the

cH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 459

teacher and which the pupil? and to which of the two are we
to assign the First Epistle? The opening verses of the First
Epistle presuppose the main ideas of the author of the Gospel ;
they are the work of the same man or his pupil. Again, the
author of the Gospel is one of the world’s creative minds, and
if there is dependence, the shorter epistles are secondary. The
Gospel and First Epistle cannot be explained as a development
of creative ideas found already in germ in the shorter letters.
These two brief notes are either by the author of the longer
works himself, recurring almost incidentally to ideas which are
of the very texture of his mind, or they are a mere echo by a
docile pupil of that mind. But a pupil who is dominated, not
only by the ideas but by the actual language of his master, to
the extent that, on this hypothesis, the Elder who writes 2 and
3 John is dominated by the author of the Gospel and First
Epistle, must be a man considerably the junior of his master,
or else one lacking sufficient initiative to develop any individual
thought and style of his own under the overmastering influence
of the older and stronger mind.

But neither is it possible to date the author of the Fourth
Gospel a generation earlier than John the Elder; nor do the
two shorter letters leave on one the impression of being written
by a man dominated by some other master mind. On the
contrary, he is evidently a leader of outstanding prestige and
position, for the one is addressed to a Church which he takes
it upon him to congratulate on the purity of its doctrine and to
warn against false teachers, the other implies the claim to an
authority which Diotrephes (apparently the local bishop) has
ventured to flout.

It is often said that the similarity in style, in thought, and
in general outlook can be explained on the assumption that the
authors belong to “the same school.” The word “ school” is
one of those vague seductive expressions which it is so easy to
accept as a substitute for clear thinking. In the sphere of art
in all ages there have been schools; and in antiquity examples

460 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT, ΠῚ

can be found in philosophy. But these two Epistles are not
treatises in philosophy or theology; they are actual letters
called forth by an actual crisis—occasioned by an insult to
certain friends of the writer which to his mind constituted, not
only a challenge to his own authority, but an attempt to suppress
the propagation of true doctrine. That is to say, they are the
product of wounded feeling and therefore reveal character. It
is a highly individual character, quite as individual as that of
Paul, and it is the character of a man who could have written
such a Gospel. This is not the kind of thing that is covered
by the phrase “a school.” Besides this, ‘a school” in art or
philosophy only comes into existence when there is a considerable
body of work by the founder which serves as a model and a
standard for the pupils. But 2 and 3 John are not long
enough to have been the model for the writer of the Gospel and
1 John, nor, as we have seen, can the writer of the shorter letters
be the pupil of the other author. Must we then assume that a
model—some work greater and nobler than the Gospel—once
existed and has since disappeared? It must have been a marvel-
lous production! Moreover, a “school” of Johannine literature
did as a matter of fact arise, something of which survives in
the Acts of John—and this is obviously what artists call ‘“‘ school
work,” an inferior imitation. We are forced to conclude that
all four documents are by the same hand. And few people,
I would add, with any feeling for literary style or for the
finer nuance of character and feeling, would hesitate to affirm
this, but for the implications which seem to be involved. For
the admission that the second and third Epistles are by the
same hand as the Gospel and the first Epistle does lead to very
far-reaching consequences. It means that we do really know
who wrote the Fourth Gospel, and therefore, approximately, the

date at which it was written.!

1 The identification of the author of 2 and 3 John with the Elder John is no
modern idea. Jerome (De Vir. Iilustr, 18) states it as the official tradition ;
and it is authoritatively affirmed in the Decretal of Pope Damasus a.D. 382,
which, if genuine (cf. Turner and Howorth, J.7.S. i. p. 544 ff., and xiv. p. 321 ff.),

CH. XV THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP 461

Sabatier speaks of the Epistle to Philemon, which is so
closely interwoven with Colossians (and Ephesians), and which
is itself so obviously genuine, in these words :! “ This short letter
to Philemon is so intensely original, so entirely innocent of
dogmatic preoccupation, and Paul’s mind has left its impress
so clearly and indelibly upon it, that it can only be set aside
by an act of sheer violence. Linked from the first with the
two epistles to which we have just referred, it is virtually Paul’s
own signature appended as their guarantee, to accompany them
through the centuries.” When the Elder penned the little
notes we speak of as 2 and 3 John, did he not similarly affix
to the Gospel and First Epistle the author’s signature ?

is the first official pronouncement on the Canon of the NT. ever made
in the Western Church. Johannis apostoli epistula una, alterius Johannis
presbyteri epistulae duae. The apparent separation in the Muratonian Canon
between the first epistle, mentioned along with the Gospel, from “" the two,” is
perhaps earlier evidence of the same view—possibly a compromise between
those who wanted to identify the Elder with the Apostle, and those who clung
to the tradition that he was the author of all four documents.
1 A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, p. 227.

XVI

SYNOPSIS

AN OLD MAN’S FAREWELL

THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE CHURCH

The Catholic Church conquered the Roman Empire because it
achieved an intellectual adaptation to its environment, which saved
it from becoming merged in the general welter of syncretistic religion,
before the generation brought up in Jewish ethical monotheism had
died out. John the Elder the most striking leader in this process.

Speculative character of the remainder of this chapter.

THE CONSERVATIVE OPPOSITION

Both the Logos Doctrine and the spiritualising of the expectation
of the visible Return of Christ likely to arouse opposition. Hvidence
of this in the Papias fragments and in 3 John.

THE APPENDIX TO THE GOSPEL

(1) The addition spoils the effective climax of ch. xx. It must
therefore have been made to meet an acute need.

* (2) Partly an attempt to reconcile Galilean and Jerusalem
tradition of Resurrection appearances.

(3) It also corrects with great emphasis a current misapprehension
that ‘“‘ this disciple should not die.” Why was such correction
urged ?

Tue Horr THAT FAILED

The revival of Apocalyptic fervour due (a) to persecution of
Domitian ; (6) to prophecies of John the Seer, author of Apocalypse.
This led to popular belief that Christ would return before the death
of the Elder John—the last survivor of the generation that had seen

463

464 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

Him in the flesh. The author desires to forestall the dangerous
disillusionment which he foresees will inevitably result from the
fulfilment of this hope.

THE YOUNGER GENERATION

The Logos doctrine is making possible the adhesion to the Church
of the educated classes; but there is danger lest the progressive
younger clergy may forget the primary command, “ Feed my
lambs.”

XVI

AN OLD MAN’S FAREWELL

(A Revere on John xxi.)

ΤῊΝ CoNSOLIDATION OF THE CHURCH

ΤῊΝ Catholic Church could not have become an institution
competent to conquer the Roman world unless, in the critical
formative period that followed the fall of Jerusalem and the
removal of the original Apostles, there had been “ raised up ”
one or more men of genius capable of realising the new situation
and responding to it rapidly and effectively—both in the sphere
of thought and of organisation. In the sphere of thought the
necessity arose for an intellectual basis for a theology which
could hold its own in the educated Greek world. To Ionia—
that is, to the Greek cities of the coast of what Rome called Asia
—we trace the first beginnings of philosophy in Europe. The
torch was handed on to Athens, and later on to Alexandria ;
but the flame was still alight in the old home, and the old Greek
search for the immanent Reason behind the Universe had not
lost its interest there: Alexandria, behindhand in welcoming
Christianity—perhaps for want of such intellectual interpreta-
tiorn—was not yet ready ; Athens was too fondly wedded to its
immortal past. But Paul had planted a Christianity in Asia
sufficiently reasoned to make an appeal to the Greek mind.
Hence at Ephesus it first became necessary, and was also possible,
for Christians “to give a reason for the hope that was in them.” 1

1.1 Peter, where that phrase occurs, was written either to, or in, Asia Minor.
465 2H

466 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

Here where the need was earliest felt it was first supplied, by
the Logos doctrine of John.

In the sphere of practice the problem was solved by the
development of the quasi-military organisation provided by the
“monarchical episcopate” in the local churches, subordinated
to the patriarchs of the great sees. This made possible a world-
wide unity of fellowship, which no persecution could stamp out,
and also an effective unity of doctrine and tradition which was
proof against the attraction to the half-educated of Gnostic
theosophies with their mixture of Persian dualism, Babylonian
astrology, Hellenistic speculation, and primitive magic. But
the Church, originally Jewish in mentality, and for the first
generation mainly inspired by Apocalyptic hopes, had perforce,
if it was to survive at all in the Roman Empire, to adapt its
theology as well as its organisation to a wholly new and wholly
alien environment.

But though without any adaptation Christianity must have
remained an unimportant sect, with too ready an adaptation it
would have become merged in the welter of syncretistic religions
characteristic of the period. This last was the greater danger.
The Early Christian Church was a Mission Church, but it had no
“home base.” The first generation of missionaries were Jews
inheriting centuries of ethical monotheism. But in the great
centres of Gentile Christianity the breach with the synagogue
was very early a complete one; and after the fall of Jerusalem
it is not likely that many Jews became converted. Thus, unlike
the Mission Churches of the present day, the early Church lacked
the inspiration and the guidance of an old-established community,
the continuous influence of which could keep the newly founded
churches true to type and check the reinfiltration of pagan
ideas from school and club and social custom. It had no
collection of sacred books specifically Christian, no coherently
thought-out theology, and very little in the way of organisation.
Its salvation was that it acquired all these things before that
generation had died out which had been bred up in the Jewish

OH. XVI AN OLD MAN’S FAREWELL 467

monotheism, Jewish ethical intensity, and the Jewish conscious-
ness of being a separate people.

John the Elder was a Jew; probably the last Jew to be
the dominating spirit in a great Gentile Church. His age, his
personal gifts, the fact that he had seen the Lord, and the im-
portance in Asia of the Church of Ephesus, would give him
personally, especially towards the end of his life, an authority
all but apostolic. His Gospel is the climax of the development
of theology in the New Testament. It gave the Church an
expression of its belief intellectually acceptable to the Greek
mind, yet true to the Jewish thought of God as personal and
as one.

To the theory that John the Elder is the author of the Gospel
it is often objected that he is “a very shadowy figure.” There
are few characters in history who would not become “ shadowy ”
if all their writings were assigned to someone else, and if all
the information available about their character and career were
supposed to refer to that other person. But the man who wrote
the Gospel and First Epistle, who was esteemed as, and acted
like, the author of the two minor epistles, and of whom
stories such as that told by Clement of Alexandria about John
and the robber,! even if not actually historical, seemed to a
succeeding generation to be “in character,” is a man of whose
personality and position we get a very definite impression. Of
course if the Apostle John did live in Ephesus, and if all these
things are rightly referred to him, then the other John is a person
of whom extremely little can be said. But if the Apostle never
was in Ephesus, these things can only belong to the Elder John—
and after Peter and Paul, John the Elder is the most striking
figure in the early Church.

This having been said, I will—for the rest of this chapter—
permit myself to stray from the paths of stern historical method,
and, in the absence of determinative evidence, allow the

1 Quis Dives, xlii., also Eus. H.H, iii. 23,

468 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

historical imagination to wander freely in the pasture-land of
speculation.

THE CONSERVATIVE OPPOSITION

The Fourth Gospel was quite a new departure, and we
must not assume that, even backed as it was by the immense
prestige of the revered Elder who was known to have seen the
Lord Himself, so startling a novelty would be welcomed at once
and by every one, even in Asia. That has never been the fate
of creative ventures in the history of religion.

The doctrine of the Logos, as the author of the Gospel saw,
made it possible to present Christianity to the educated Greek
world in a way that it could accept. It was the boldest “ re-
statement ” of Christianity in terms of contemporary thought
ever attempted in the history of the Church. True, it did not
in substance go far beyond the later epistles of Paul. But the
word Logos, though possibly familiar in lecture and discussion,
had never been used in anything like an authoritative church
document. Just as the insertion into the Nicene Creed of the
term ὁμοούσιον (of one essence) on the instance of Athanasius
was resisted by the more conservative bishops as unscriptural,
so, we may be sure, the unapostolic term Logos would have been
regarded with suspicion when first the attempt was made to use
it in an official document of the Church by Athanasius’ greatest
predecessor.

But a feature in the Fourth Gospel which we may be sure
would have been resented in some circles, far more even than the
doctrine of the Logos, was the attempt to interpret the prophecies
of our Lord about His Second Coming in a spiritual sense. It
is true that John does not absolutely deny an Apocalyptic Judge-
ment ; nevertheless, for all practical purposes he substitutes the
Coming of the Comforter for the visible Return of Christ. It
may be argued with some plausibility that in this matter John
was nearer than Matthew to the spirit, if not to the form, of our
Lord’s teaching ; but the book of Revelation, produced about

CH. XVI AN OLD MAN’S FAREWELL 469

the same time, shows that this was by no means the universal
view in Asia. Dr. Charles holds that John the Seer knew the
Gospel of Matthew," and it is very likely that by this time copies
of Matthew were being circulated in Asia. If so, this Gospel
would certainly be appealed to by those who clung to the more
literal Apocalyptic view in their attempt to stem the current of
the “rationalism” of John. And for Matthew’s Gospel the
claim of apostolic authorship was made. The fragment of
Papias, “ Matthew composed the Logia in the Hebrew language,
and each one interpreted them as he could,” represents, I have
argued, the substance of the Elder’s reply ; asserting that the
Discourses in the Greek Matthew—he is thinking mainly of
the Apocalyptic sayings—are not a first-hand report of what
Christ said, they are only a translation.

The authority of John the Elder would commend the new
Gospel to the more advanced circles in the community ; in the
city of Ephesus itself, where he had lived and taught so long,
there would be nothing in it particularly novel. The Epistles to
the Colossians and Ephesians contain phrases which, even if they
do not imply Paul’s own familiarity with some of the ideas which
Philo (and no doubt others whose works do not survive) had
made current coin in the Judaism of the Dispersion, would be
widely interpreted in that sense. The conception of the Divine
Logos, as hammered out by Philo to form a synthesis between
Jewish and Neo-Platonic thought, was just the concept needed
in a place like Ephesus, not only to interpret Christianity to the
Greek in terms of Divine Immanence, but also to meet the
standing taunt of the Jew that those who worshipped Christ
were setting up a second God. Ephesus itself would be familiar
with the idea, for John the Elder had of course preached his

1 R. H. Charles, op. cit. p. lxxxiv. ff. The difficulty of being quite sure of
literary dependence is unusually great where the common matter consists in
apocalyptic sayings of a kind which were “in the air,” even though it includes
a similar combination of two separate OT passages, since this may have been
derived from a collection of Messianic proof-texts. Nevertheless, in my opinion,
the balance of evidence inclines in favour of Charles’s view.

470 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

Gospel there for many years before he wrote it; but in some
of the smaller centres it would probably sound both new and
dangerous. In any case, to put it down in black and white as
the Preface to a Gospel was a bold step forward.

Progressive movements usually begin in cities; the small
towns and villages lag behind. The new Gospel would require
commendation in the smaller cities of Asia. That, we may
conjecture, was, partly at any rate, the purpose of the First
Epistle of John. It is a letter intended to follow up the Gospel
and commend its general standpoint and teaching, in the first
place to Ephesus, but more especially to the smaller Churches.
Its opening words, ‘‘ That which we have seen with our eyes
and our hands have handled,” are intended to make it clear
from the start that, for all his sympathy with the philosophic
intellectuals, the author will have nothing to do with any kind
of Gnostic ‘“ docetism’’ which makes the humanity of Christ
unreal. Later on, again, the protest that the Christ came both
“by water and by blood ” (1 John v. 6) brings home the point
that he is on the side of the tradition of the Church against
innovators like Cerinthus.

A religious community is always conservative in regard to
its sacred literature. At the time when the Fourth Gospel was
published, Mark had already been the Gospel, read aloud at
the weekly services, for perhaps five-and-twenty years. It was
not as yet regarded as inspired scripture, but already it was
looked upon with perhaps the kind of affection and prestige which
attaches to the Book of Common Prayer in the Church of England.
Here, then, is the most natural explanation of the other Papias
fragment about Mark; it shows us the Elder John put on his
defence in regard to the chronology of his own Gospel—though,
of course, what reached Papias must be taken as a summary of
the general purport of his defence rather than the actual words
he used. The Elder replies to his critics with an affirmation of
respect for Mark’s accuracy in points of fact ; but he puts forth
a reason—Mark’s dependence on casual utterances of Peter—to

CH, XVI AN OLD MAN’S FAREWELL 471

account for its defect in the matter of the order and arrangement
of events. The introduction of a new Gospel would be regarded
at Ephesus much as that of a new Prayer Book in the Church of
England. Some would be inclined to welcome, others to resent
it. But a Gospel so unlike Mark as that of John must have been
regarded even by the moderates without enthusiasm, and by the
conservatives as a highly dangerous concession to that tendency
to philosophising mysticism which, popularised by Gnostics, was
at the moment the greatest peril of the Church. To old-fashioned
Church members the Logos doctrine would be “ the thin end of
the wedge” ; Gnosticism must follow.

It would look as if in 3 John we catch a glimpse of an incident
in this struggle with the conservative party. I have shown above
that this correspondence implies that Diotrephes, the local Bishop,
had taken upon himself to exercise the right of exclusion—early
conceded to the episcopate as a safeguard against wandering
Gnostic prophets—against the authorised delegates of John the
Elder. This would be quite explicable if Diotrephes was one of
those who regarded the Johannine theology as dangerously akin
to that of the Gnostics. It is the first, but not the last, instance
on record when one who has grasped the vital necessity of inter-
preting the Christian message in terms of the thought of the age
has been accused by certain of the country clergy of “ selling the
pass ” to the Church’s enemies.

Tue APPENDIX TO THE GOSPEL

Numberless hypotheses have been put forward concerning
the purpose and authorship of the last chapter of John. All
those which do not begin by recognising that the chapter is a
work of genius may be dismissed. Critics who have bemused
their faculties by the study of one another’s theories so far as to
think that any purely mechanical editing or any pettifogging
controversial motive has here found expression need not be
listened to. The style of the added conclusion to Mark is

472 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

pedestrian ; the Appendix to John is great literature. Hence no
hypothesis need be taken seriously which is not, from a religious
and literary point of view, a worthy one. But just for that very
reason any hypothesis that we entertain must be recognised
as tentative. For of the laws which govern genius we know little.
There are, however, three points which seem reasonably clear.
(1) The Gospel was originally intended to end with the con-
cluding verses of chapter xx.—and a magnificent ending it is.
“Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God.
Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast
believed: blessed are they that have not seen and yet have
believed.” . . . “ Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the
presence of the disciples which are not written in this book:
but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ
the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in His name.”
But, granted that chapter xxi. is of the nature of an after-
thought, was it added by the author himself or by some later hand?
The last two verses, we have already seen, by the change from the
third person to the first, advertise themselvés as by a different
author from the Gospel. But the style, the gift of imaginative
description, and the spiritual elevation of the rest of the Appendix,
suggest the work of the same master mind that conceived and
wrote the Gospel. There are, however, certain minutiae of
diction 1 which point rather to some other hand, unless indeed it
was written by the author of the Gospel after some considerable
interval of time. But, if we accept the former alternative, the
points of contact in general outlook and in large ideas are so
marked that this other hand must have been that of a pupil of
the author saturated in his master’s spirit—putting in writing,
perhaps after that master’s death, what he knew to be the
substance of his last message to the Church he had loved and
served so long. But would such a pupil, any more than the
author himself, have been likely to make an addition which so
mars the effect of the impressive conclusion of the original
1 These are conveniently given by Moffatt, Introduction to the N.T. p. 572.

OH. XVI AN OLD MAN’S FAREWELL 473

work ? Not unless something had happened in the meanwhile
which made what he had to say in the Appendix of vital im-
portance for the Church of the time. The Appendix then, we
may surmise, was added to meet a new need.

(2) Apart from the Appendix, John only records Resurrection
Appearances in Jerusalem. But we have seen some reason to
believe that the recension of Mark current in Ephesus represented
the first Appearance to any of the Twelve as that to Peter and
others by the Sea of Galilee. Now John frequently corrects,
and still more frequently ignores, statements in Mark. But we
may well imagine that on a question like the evidence for the
Resurrection a serious discrepancy between two Gospels, both
by this time “read” in the Church, might cause disquietude.
The Appendix, by its emphatic assertion “ This is the third time
Jesus appeared to His disciples,” seems to be insisting that the
Fourth Gospel is right in placing the Jerusalem Appearances
Jirst, while at the same time recognising the substantial historical
correctness of Mark in recording an Appearance by the Sea of
Galilee. This, be it observed, is exactly in the spirit of the
Elder’s comment on Mark preserved by Papias—Mark is correct
as to facts, but not as to their order. But we ought also to
explain the immense emphasis thrown, by the way in which the
story is told, on the threefold commission to Peter, ‘“‘ Feed my
sheep.” It would look as if there were people at Ephesus who,
in the author’s opinion, would do well to draw a practical moral
from the incident. I shall return to this point later.

(3) The last two verses (Jn. xxi. 24-25), we have seen, are a still
later addition ; so the Appendix would originally have ended as
follows: “‘ Peter therefore seeing Him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and
what shall this man do? Jesus said unto him, If I will that he
tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. This
saying therefore went forth among the brethren that that
disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him that he
should not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is
that to thee ?” '

474 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΠῚ

The Gospel is thus made to end on a mere correction of a
popular misapprehension of one of our Lord’s sayings; this is
the author’s last word! The Greeks, like the French and Italians
at the present day, could not tolerate anything rhetorically
ineffective. And we are considering the work of one who was not
only a writer of great literary and dramatic sense, but must also
have been an experienced preacher. We can only conclude that
the removal of this particular misconception was the main reason
for adding the Appendix.

We ask, then, what special circumstances, what vital need,
of the Church could adequately be met by an Appendix the
climax of which deals with a difficulty connected with a supposed
prophecy of Christ with regard to the death of the beloved
disciple and His own Return.

Tur Hope THAT FAILED

I reiterate that the evidence at our disposal only justifies
inferences of a very tentative character. But as a “ provisional
hypothesis ” the following would, I think, adequately account for
the facts to be explained. The Gospel, I suggest, was originally
published without the Appendix shortly before the persecution of
Domitian,! say about the year a.p. 90. Next to the Logos
doctrine, its most noticeable contribution to contemporary
Christian theology was the endeavour to interpret the Apocalyptic
expectation of a visible return of Christ in a spiritual sense.
This was by no means the ordinary view, but as time went on,
and the Lord did not visibly return, Christians became more and

1 The fact of a persecution under Domitian is denied by Prof. E. T. Merrill,
Essays on Early Church History, ch. vi. (Macmillan, 1924). He admits, how-
ever, that Domitian was “more urgent about enforcing conformity than were
his predecessors on the throne and most of his successors,”’ especially in the
matter of emperor worship ; since, then, Asia was specially devoted to this cult,
the Apocalypse is sufficient evidence of a revival of persecution in that
Province. He admits also that Domitilla, the wife of Flavius Clemens, died
a Christian ; if so, it is pure special pleading to say that the ‘‘ atheism” (i.e.
non-conformity to the State religion) of which her husband was accused is
more likely to have been Jewish than Christian.

OH, XVI AN OLD MAN’S FAREWELL 475

more concerned at the apparent non-fulfilment of their hope.
John believes that the coming of the Spirit, the Comforter, was,
if not the whole, at any rate the only immediate, fulfilment to
be expected to the prophecies of Christ in regard to His second
coming. To those perplexed by the delay of the Parousia John
says, “ You are making a mistake, the promise has already been
fulfilled in the coming of the Paraclete; both Eternal Life and
Judgement have already begun, though neither is completely
consummated in this life.”

This doctrine would have found a welcome among a very
large section of Christians about the year a.p. 90. It provided
the answer to the outstanding practical religious difficulty of
that age. And it did so on conservative lines, for it was merely
a further development, a more definite formulation, and a new
application, of the doctrine of the Spirit already to be found in
Paul’s Epistles.

But the outbreak of persecution under Domitian changed the
situation. The whole history of Jewish literature during the
three preceding centuries shows that, whenever there was a
period of acute persecution, the fact that older writers had
foretold a great tribulation as a necessary prelude to a cata-
strophic intervention of God to deliver His people from their
oppressors, led to a revival of Apocalyptic expectation, accom-
panied by a republication of older Apocalypses and the com-
position of new ones. The world-wide tribulation of the recent
Great War has produced in many circles an immense revival of
interest in the doctrine of the Second Advent, Apocalyptically
conceived. This gives an analogy which illuminates the psycho-
logical conditions of such a revival of Apocalyptic interest in
earlier times. That the persecution of Domitian had this effect
is not a matter of mere hypothesis. Irenaeus tells us that the
Revelation of John, which I need hardly repeat cannot possibly
be by the same author as the Gospel, was “seen” toward the end
of the reign of Domitian; and modern critics are practically
unanimous, on grounds of internal evidence, in accepting this

476 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. U1

date. There is, moreover, the fact that the majority of the
sayings of the Elders reported by Papias are strongly Apocalyptic
in character. Papias himself is evidence how deeply rooted this
became in the Christianity of Asia.

The symbolism, and indeed the whole world of thought in
which the mind of the author of Revelation moves, is extra-
ordinarily remote to the educated man of the present day. But,
in spite of that, no one can read it without feeling the tremendous
force and power of conviction that lies behind it. In that age
and in those circles it came with a claim to be a direct revelation
—a claim taken quite literally when made by a “ prophet”
recognised as such in the Church—and it came at a moment when
the comparative tranquillity of the last twenty years had been
brought to an end by Domitian’s attempt to promote the worship
of the Emperor in the Provinces, and to enforce it by strong
methods. We can hardly under-estimate the tremendous
impression which such a book, at such a crisis, would produce
upon the Churches to which it was addressed. Throughout the
province of Asia there would follow a wild revival of Apocalyptic
hopes, and of a fanatical conviction that the visible return of
Christ was to be expected in the immediate future—doubtless,
it would be agreed, within the 1290 days spoken of by Daniel
(Dan. xii. 11; Rev. xi. 2, xiii. 5).

But Domitian was assassinated in a.D. 96, and the persecution
died down; and the 1290 days within which the return of the
Lord was expected passed, and the Lord did not return. As
usual under such circumstances, perplexed believers sought a
new interpretation of the old prophecies, and especially of the
words of Christ which stood in the old Ephesian Gospel of Mark,
as well as in the new arrival, Matthew. ‘“‘ There be some here of
them that stand by, which shall in no wise taste of death, till
they see the Kingdom of God come with power” (Mk. ix. 1).
The original Apostles had passed away ; but perhaps the Lord
had meant that His return would be within the lifetime, not of
the Twelve, but merely of some who had been alive at the time

CH. XVI AN OLD MAN’S FAREWELL 4177

and had seen Him in the flesh. There was one man at
Ephesus who had seen Christ—the Elder John. Inevitably
the idea would get about that the prophecy of the Lord
would be fulfilled if this one disciple should tarry till He
came, and that this was the true meaning of the original
words in Mark.

There are those alive who can remember the feeling of
trepidation with which members of the Irvingite Church watched
the declining years of the last survivor of those twelve ‘“‘ Apostles ””
within the lifetime of whom Edward Irving, the founder of the
community, had prophesied the visible return of Christ. And
when the last of these did die, and the Lord did not return, that
community received a grievous shock. A similar situation
seemed likely to develop in the Church of Ephesus about the
year A.D. 100. The Elder John knew that, if he died before
the Lord returned, the faith of many would receive a staggering
blow. Long ago he had made up his own mind that Christ’s
prophecy of an immediate coming bore another interpretation,
and that no visible Return was to be looked for. But experience
had shown him that it was not possible directly to confute the
fanatic hope of an immediate Return, recently revivified by
the passionate prophecy of John the Seer. Besides, the Elder
was by now an old man with failing powers. All that he could
do was to add something to his Gospel which would provide,
as it were, a reserve trench against the hour of disillusionment
which he saw to be inevitable—to append to it a word of the
Master, which would be there when he was gone, as an evidence
that it was, not the Lord, but their own misunderstanding that
had misled them; “yet Jesus said not unto him, that he
should not die”; but, “if I will that he tarry . . .”
‘“‘ There be some which shall not taste of death.” Is it fancifu
to suggest that it was the death, many years ago, of John the
Apostle, the last survivor of the Twelve, that had awakened the
Elder himself from Apocalyptic dreams? The last of the Twelve
had died, and the Master’s words were unfulfilled; the shock of

478 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. ΤΠ

disillusionment would be intense. To most of that generation
the Return of the Lord in glory to inaugurate the new world
order was “the Gospel ’—it constituted the great good news
for a despairing world. For a time, perhaps, his belief in
Christianity was shattered. Then he had set out on a quest
for an alternative interpretation of the Master’s words—the
quest which led him at last to the doctrine of the Paraclete.
Perhaps—for we have seen that he was a “ prophet ’—while
wrestling with the problem he had slipped into a mystic
trance, and it was revealed to him?! that what the Lord
had really said to that Apostle was not, “ He shall tarry
till I come,” but, “If I will that he tarry . . . what is that
to thee ?”

The doctrine of the spiritual Return—reached in a great
religious crisis in his own earlier life—he had in its positive aspect
set down in his Gospel. That was all that seemed needed at
the time when that was written. But circumstances had changed.
Now its negative aspect is of equal importance; it is vital that the
Church should have it authoritatively on record that there was
no foundation in the words of Christ for the belief that He would
return visibly within the lifetime of those who heard Him. The
belief, which a generation ago had centred round John the
Apostle, the last survivor of the Three, perhaps also of the Twelve,
was now attaching itself to John the Elder as the last survivor of
the generation who had seen the Lord. But the Elder himself
—or an understanding pupil, if the Appendix was written by such
an one—knew that it was certain a second time to bring many
to disillusionment and perhaps despair. The Appendix to the
Gospel is an attempt to forestall this. It is a last message
to the Ephesian Church, which, written and made public before
the time, might, for some at any rate of his “little children,”
break the force of the inevitable shock.

1 For an illustration of how a contemporary mystic, in a similar way, finds
the solution of difficulties presented by Scripture, especially in regard to
Apocalyptic, see The Sadhu, Streeter and Appasamy, ch. vy.

OH. XVI AN OLD MAN’S FAREWELL 479

Tur YOUNGER GENERATION

The Apocalyptic reaction, of which the book of Revelation
and the sayings of Elders which Papias reports are evidence, was,
perhaps, not the only element in the religious situation which the
Appendix has in view. We may surmise that, in spite of the
storm which the publication of the Gospel had aroused in conserva-
tive circles, its doctrines had made rapid progress elsewhere. Τῇ,
in the lack of definite evidence, we may allow ourselves to frame
an imaginative reconstruction of the situation, we may conjecture
that, since this ‘“‘ modernism ” of John had become the fashion,
it was noticed that more men of the professional classes were
beginning to join the Church. Presbyters who had felt that the
Elder was inclined to go a little too far, were reassured by finding
that the attitude of educated pagan opinion was beginning to
change. Christianity was becoming intellectually respectable ;
the Church was making headway among the student class, a
number of young men from the school of Tyrannus, or rather his
successor, had been baptized—a thing hitherto unheard of. All
this was to the good; but there was another side. John’s
doctrine of the Divine Logos and his spiritualising of the Apo-
calyptic hope had made Christianity a possible religion for an
educated Greek; but it had also opened the door to the
intellectualism, the passion for eternal argument, to which
the Greek mind was all too prone — witness that series of
controversies which in the following centuries were the Church’s
bane. Already some of the younger presbyters, clever argu-
mentative Greeks, were spending half their days in hair-splitting
discussion.

That, so the old man may have reflected, was one reason why
the obscurantist party was gaining ground—especially with the
poorer classes. Hell fire, and the Immediate Coming with exact
date given—these the working man could understand. Uncom-
promising traditionalism inspired by sincere conviction was, no

480 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. II

doubt, with its “definite teaching,” winning souls. But what
would become of those souls won by that teaching about the
Second Coming—definite enough, but definitely untrue—when,
as in the course of a very few years or even months was bound to
happen, they discovered its untruth? What would happen to
these then 2

‘It might avail something to have put on record a saying
that would show them that it was not Christ but their teachers
who had misled them. But how many of the poorer sort would
ever hear the new ending of the Gospel read, or, if they did, would
grasp the point ? And, their old teachers discredited, to whom
would they go for help? These young presbyters, who had grasped
the new theology, were the only hope—but could they be depended
on? Would they be ready, as, to do them justice, the reaction-
aries had been, to meet the poor and simple on their own level, to
go out to seek and save, to comfort and befriend? Or were
“the little children,” for whom he had lived and Christ had
died, to fall away—between the earnest teachers of beliefs
the complete discrediting of which was merely a matter of
time, and the bright young progressives interested only in things
intellectual ?

The future of the Church depended on the men who would
face, frankly and boldly, the intellectual problems of the day—
but did the men who saw this see also that, though absolutely
vital, this was neither the one nor the first thing necessary ? And
yet everything depended on them. Perhaps they might listen
to him, or rather to a word of the Lord, if he emphatically recalled
it to their notice as his own last message to them. To some
of them he was already become something of the old fogey now,
but to most he was still the great leader, the founder of a truly
scientific theology. The word he wanted them to ponder may
have stood at the end of the Ephesian copies of Mark, but that
was the old-fashioned Gospel now. When originally he wrote
his own Gospel it had not seemed worth while to reproduce this
—it was so familiar. But he will do so now. He will add it to

CH. XVI AN OLD MAN’S FAREWELL 481

his own Gospel to make it clear that he too thought it worth
while to emphasise, as the last will and testament of Christ,
the appeal three times repeated : ‘‘ Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
thou me?” “ Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.” “Feed
my lambs.”

PART iV

SYNOPTIC ORIGINS

483

{ " =F “ἢ
4 . 4
» ‘
i 4 ἢ
ΠΝ νὴ
να
ayye
ΝΥ
‘ sh oe
“ ’
ἵν i
» Ἶ Ἱ
᾿ : -
i
,
τα Ϊ *
Ὧι
i “ ἧἦ 4 x
᾿ ἌΡ.
ἢ ᾿ ὶ :
; ¥, a
VE AT ca
i 3 a one
ν “
κπιρῆσα omcn
ΓΙ] "
t MI
in i
1
f .
4 >
)»
}
i } a Ν᾿ ᾿
i με Ἷ
it }
\ Γ
om ἡ Ὕ ΟΝ a
‘ ἐ ᾿ ἢ [ 7
, ‘ ᾿ % - an
Ἢ hea) Ἂ ᾿'
ἐλ ΑΝ eh
᾿ ᾿ Ἢ τ ἈΝ j
" Bot nl ᾿ , ah ils ’ τ ᾿ ἡ
a ay Oy! eter
ἼΙ ᾿ ὶ Ἢ e Π ΔΛ 4 1
᾿ ' Visa bt at he x :
᾿ ry 1 at μ ἱ
Π ) νυ mb
F , Nd 7
ὶ ὶ

‘| R ν 4 ΠΑΝ A 4 1 Ly
Pes

᾿ ιν» fi vm ro hi ἱ τ, : oh
τι mAs ὮΝ 7 ty if : x
4} Χο. Ἂν ΤᾺ Ἷ yield ζ μὰ
ΠῚ j aye pa j
Wr sees al a eee Pe - ok
: ΓΑ, ΧΙ ἢ
Ὁ] ΡΥ i Le ne
᾿ 4 ‘ Ὁ

XVII
DATE AND LOCAL ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW

SYNOPSIS
PART I.—MARK

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

The language of Irenaeus may imply that both Mark and Luke
were written in Rome—and he was so understood by some of the
ancients. Clement’s statement that Mark wrote in Rome may be
derived from Irenaeus. But 2 Timothy and 1 Peter both connect
Mark with Rome at about the date of the writing of the Gospel.
The evidence of 1 Peter is of value, even if it be held (a) that the
epistle is not by the Apostle; (6) that Peter never came to Rome.
The inclusion of this Gospel in the Canon is easier to explain if it was
specially connected with Rome.

THe LittTLtE APOCALYPSE

The dating of Apocalyptic literature. Mark xi. is a Little
Apocalypse, partially made up of authentic sayings of Christ. The
Abomination of Desolation (Mk. xiii. 14), a prophecy that the Anti-
Christ (cf. 2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.) will appear in the Temple at Jerusalem.
Probability that this “ Apocalyptic fly-leaf” was composed some
years before A.D. 70, but was slightly modified by Mark when inserting
it into the Gospel in the light of the later experiences of Paul, and
perhaps also of the Neronian persecution. This fits in with Irenaeus’s
statement that Mark was written “‘after the death of Peter and
Paul.”

Tue GosPEL AND THE APOSTLE

Rome as a distributing centre for the earliest Christian literature.
The biographical Gospel an invention of Mark, suggested by Gentile
485

486 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

rather than Jewish practice. The expectation of the end of the
world unfavourable to historical writing.

An interest in recording the past first awakened after the
Neronic persecution and the death of the Apostles.

A new suggestion as to the origin of the title ““ Gospel.”

The Gospel of Mark, with Romans, 1 Corinthians, and, perhaps,
Ephesians, became the nucleus of the New Testament in its two main
divisions. Historical importance of this body of common literature
for preserving the unity of the Church.

PART 11.--ΜΑΤΤΉ
THE ANTIOCHENE ORIGIN oF MATTHEW

The tradition that Matthew was written in Palestine a deduction
from Papias’ statement about the Hebrew λόγια, nevertheless it is
evidence that the Gospel came from the Hast.

The anonymity of the Gospel shows it was written for a definite
local Church—the name Matthew a later accretion due to its
embodying a document by that Apostle. This Church must have
been one of great influence, or the Gospel would not have secured
universal acceptance so soon.

Reasons for excluding Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Caesarea—
and indeed any Church in Palestine. Antioch the only important
Church left, and to this there are no objections. Positive considera-
tions favouring Antiochene origin.

EvIDENCE OF IGNATIUS

Antiochene origin confirmed by an examination of certain
passages in Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which suggest that he not
only knew Matthew, but quotes it as ‘‘ the Gospel.”

QUOTATIONS IN THE DIDACHE

The Didache a Syrian document, probably not later than a.p. 100.
Its author knew Matthew, and referred to it as “ the Gospel.”

THE PETRINE COMPROMISE

The hypothesis of Antiochene origin is borne out by internal
evidence afforded by the analysis of sources in Chap. IX.

Many Christian refugees from Jerusalem would come to Antioch
about A.D. 66, bringing with them the Jerusalem tradition we have

OH. XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 487

styled M, about the same time that the first copy of Mark reached
Antioch. These documents represented the moderate liberal
(Petrine) and the Judaistic (James) party as against the more liberal
(Pauline) tendency. Evidence that the Gospel of Matthew represents
a careful compromise, based on the idea of Peter as the supreme
interpreter of the New Law (“ bind and loose ’’).

Such a compromise might well have taken twenty years to reach.

ANTIOCH AND THE ANTI-CHRIST

Reasons for placing Matthew after a.p. 70.

The effect on Jews and Christians of the shock of the Destruction
of Jerusalem and the Temple. :

Three different ways in which John, Luke, and Matthew solve the
problem of the non-fulfilment of prophecies about the Parousia and
the Anti-Christ.

The Didache correctly interprets the ““ Abomination ” in Matthew
as the “ World-deceiver,” 1.6. Anti-Christ. The omission by Syr. 8
of “ standing in the holy place ” (Mt. xxiv. 15) probably correct: in
that case Matthew disconnects the Anti-Christ prophecy from the
Temple, making it possible to connect it (as is done in the Apocalypse,
etc.) with the ‘“‘ Nero-redivivus.myth.”

Enhancement of Apocalyptic interest a conspicuous feature of
Matthew. Evidence of this briefly summarised. This partly
accounted for by fact that Antioch was the gate of the Hast and,
therefore, peculiarly exposed to the psychological influence of the
popular belief that Nero, alive or to be revived, was about to lead
the hosts of Parthia across the Euphrates against Rome.

DatTE OF WRITING

The use of Matthew in the Didache and the probable knowledge
of it by the authors of the Fourth Gospel and of the Apocalypse make
a date later than a.p. 85 improbable. Both the relation of Matthew
and Mark, and the reconciliation of parties previously discussed,
suggest a date twenty years later than Mark. Thus from two sides
the year A.D. 85 is fixed as the approximate date of writing.

CHAPTER XVII
DATE AND LOCAL ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW

PART IL—MARK
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

TRENAEUS had read Papias ; but, as his strongest weapon against
Gnosticism is his appeal to the open tradition of the Roman
Church, and as he had himself resided in Rome, we may reason-
ably ascribe to that tradition the additional fact (especially as
the addition has no apologetic value) which he adds to Papias’
account of Mark—namely, that that Gospel was written after the
death of Peter and Paul. Irenaeus does not actually name the
place of writing, but he is arguing in the immediate context
(quoted page 8) that Mark and Luke wrote with the idea of
carrying on the work of Peter and Paul (“ preaching and found-
ing the church in Rome”) presumably in the same part of the
world—indeed, the most natural interpretation of his language
would be that both Mark and Luke were written in Rome. This
would seem to have been the interpretation current at one time
in Alexandria ; for in Codex Y, 473, and other cursives there are
“ subscriptions ”—obviously in the main dependent on Irenaeus
—which profess to be derived from Cosmas Indicopleustes, a
retired Alexandrian sea captain, who probably gives the view
accepted there by the Church authorities in his time, c. 522.1

1 The “‘ subscriptions ” of 473 (Scriv. 512) are in Scrivener’s Introd. to the
Criticism of the N.T., 4th ed. i. p. 66, cf. Tischendorf, iii. p. 456; those in Y
in W. C. Braithwaite’s article, Haxpository Times, Dec. 1901. They assert,
among other things, that Mark was dictated by Peter in Rome, and Luke

by Paul in Rome.
488

on, XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 489

As regards Mark, we have the statement of Clement of
Alexandria, c. 200, who says that Mark wrote in Rome in the
absence of, but during the lifetime of, Peter. But as Clement
had undoubtedly read Irenaeus, he is not an entirely independent
witness. But there are two pieces of evidence of a much earlier
date. (1) In an admittedly genuine portion of 2 Timothy (iv. 11),
written during Paul’s last imprisonment, Mark is summoned by
the Apostle to Rome. (2) The first Epistle of Peter presents us
with Peter and Mark as together in Rome. The authenticity of
the Epistle is disputed ; but if the Epistle is not by Peter, then
these personal details have been added by its author expressly in
order to give an air of verisimilitude to the claim of Apostolic
authorship ; but they would not have furthered that object unless
the presence of Peter and Mark in Rome together had been
already an accepted belief at the time when the Epistle was
written. If the Epistle was not written by the Apostle himself,
it may be as late as, but can hardly be later than, a.p. 110, for it
is quoted by Polycarp, a.p. 115, more clearly and more often
than any other book of the New Testament, so that we may
reasonably infer that it was regarded by him as Apostolic. The
belief, then, that Peter and Mark had been together in Rome was
current before Α.Ὁ. 110.

Some critics have rejected the tradition that the Gospel was
written in Rome on the ground that it is merely an inference
drawn by some early Christian from the connection of Mark with
Peter, and the other tradition (which they also reject) that Peter
was martyred in Rome. But, if we suppose that Peter did not

1 “ She that is in Babylon elect together with you ”’ (1 Peter v. 13) can only
mean the Church in Rome. Babylon as a symbolic name of Rome is found
in contemporary Jewish writings (cf. Sibylline Oracles, v. 143; 2 Baruch xi. 1)
and occurs six times in the Apocalypse. If any tradition had existed that Peter
visited the Mesopotamian Babylon, the Syriac-speaking Church would have
claimed him as a founder. As a matter of fact they claim Thomas; while the
third-century canon of the New Testament, in the Doctrine of Addai, im-
plicitly denies the personal presence of Peter and implies the Roman tradition :
“ The Gospel (7.e. the Diatessaron) and the Epistles of Paul which Simon Kepha

sent you from Rome.” Cf. R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen A postelgeschichten
(Braunschweig, 1887), ii. 2, p. 193.

490 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. IV

die in Rome, how are we to account for the tradition that he did
so? Professor Merrill!1—on the assumption that (a) Babylon in
1 Pet. v. 13 means the Mesopotamian city, (6) the letter is a
genuine work of the Apostle—argues that the belief that Peter
visited Rome was an inference first made by Hegesippus
c. A.D. 160, from the mention of Babylon in 1 Peter. If, how-
ever, Babylon in that Epistle does mean Rome (ef. p. 489 n.),
then it follows that, either Peter did visit Rome, or the Epistle
is not authentic. But if the Epistle is not authentic, then the
belief that Peter came to Rome was well established before
the Epistle was written, and we must again ask the question,
How (supposing it to be untrue) did such a belief arise 4

The only answer I can suggest is to say that it arose as an
inference—it is not certain that it is a mistaken one—from the
epistle of Clement (v.-vi.), which mentions the deaths of Peter
and Paul in close connection with the Neronian persecution, and
which had a wide and immediate circulation in the East. But if
it is a mistaken inference, the prior belief that a Gospel, repre-
senting Peter’s reminiscences, had emanated from Rome would
obviously be a material factor, both in Rome and elsewhere, in
bringing about the acceptance of that interpretation of Clement
which affirmed that Peter himself had been in Rome—a view
which was held by Dionysius of Corinth by a.p. 170, and possibly
even by Ignatius.2 Thus the hypothesis that Mark was written
in Rome is a legitimate inference from the tradition that Peter
and Mark were together in Rome, if that is historical; or, if
that tradition is not historical, then it helps to explain its
origin. At any rate, the evidence of 2 Timothy, that Mark was
sent for to Rome, just before the date which internal evidence
suggests as probably that of the composition of the Gospel,
affords sufficient justification—there being not a shadow of

1 Op. cit. p. 311 f.

? Cf. the letter of Dionysius quoted Eus. H.H. ii. 25. Ignatius, Rom. iv. 3,
“1 do not enjoin you like Peter and Paul (ὡς Πέτρος καὶ Ilad\os),”’ supposing

this implies the bodily presence of Peter in Rome. Dionysius certainly,
Ignatius probably, had read 1 Clement.

cx.xvt ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 491

evidence to the contrary—for the acceptance as authentic of the
undoubtedly very early belief in the Roman origin of the Gospel.
Lastly, the inclusion in the Canon of a Gospel containing
hardly anything not found in the more popular Gospels of
Matthew and Luke (cf. p. 10 f.) is easier to explain if it had
some special connection with the important See of Rome.

Tue Lirtte APOCALYPSE

The statement of Irenaeus that the Gospel of Mark was written
“ after the death of Peter and Paul” fits admirably with what
we should infer from a study of the Apocalyptic chapter,
Mark xiii.

Apocalyptic is a type of literature which has a long history in
Jewish religion. It has certain conventions of its own. One of
these is the practice of ascribing the authorship of a writing and
the visions and prophecies it contains, not to the real author, but
to some great prophet or hero of olden time ; another, almost as
persistent, is the incorporation and reaffirmation of previous
prophecies, with such modifications as will bring out what the
later author believes to have been their original meaning. And
he always supposes these to have been written with reference to
the events of his own time, not that of the original writer, and to
foretell the Great Deliverance which he anticipates as near at
hand. This fact often makes it possible to determine the date
of an Apocalypse by its references (usually symbolic) to well-
known historical events.

The first two verses of Mark xiii. probably belong to the same
cycle of tradition as the rest of the Gospel. But the remainder
of the chapter reads as if it were a “ little Apocalypse,”
buted (in accordance with the above-mentioned convention of

attri-

Apocalyptic writers) to some great one of the past—in this case
to Jesus himself—and incorporating as usual a certain amount of
older material which in this case consisted largely of actual sayings
of Christ. Mark xiii. is thus really a mixture of early Christian

492 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

Apocalyptic expectations and genuine utterances of our Lord ;
but it was, of course, incorporated by Mark in his Gospel in the
belief that it was wholly authentic. Until quite recently com-
mentators and critics (myself among them)! interpreted the
passage about the Abomination of Desolation (Mk. xii. 14) as a
reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in
A.D. 70, and therefore supposed the Gospel must be subsequent to
that date. That idea has been exploded by the researches of
Bousset and others into the origin and prevalence of the “ Anti-
Christ ” legend. It is now recognised that the Greek text (xiii.
14) which gives a masculine participle ἑστηκότα agreeing with
the neuter noun βδέλυγμα is not, as would appear at first sight,
an atrocious grammatical blunder, but is intentional. It
is comparable to the use in the Fourth Gospel of the masculine
ἐκεῖνος (Jn. xvi. 13)—or the relative ὃν, x°LX Chrys., (Jn. xiv.
26)—when speaking of the Holy Spirit in order to emphasise the
fact that the writer regards the neuter substantive as the name
of a person, not a thing. It is definitely intended to make it
clear that the author interprets the neuter word βδέλυγμα,
“abomination,” in the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. xii. 11) as
a title of a personal Anti-Christ. Modern critics, doubtless
correctly, suppose that the passage in Daniel has reference to
the desecration of the Temple at Jerusalem by Antiochus Epi-
phanes, which provoked the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.c. But
neither Mark nor the author of this chapter was versed in the
methods of the Higher Criticism, and the meaning they were
likely to attach to Daniel must be ascertained by studying the
ideas of their age, not ours. To them Daniel was a prophet and
was supposed to have written centuries before Antiochus ; and
the Abomination of Desolation was a mysterious horror which an
inspired prophet had foretold as destined to appear 1290 days
before the coming of the Messianic Kingdom. The Apocalyptist
who wrote chapter xiii. was convinced that he had found the
true interpretation of Daniel. The mysterious horror was no
1 Oxford Studies, p. 182.

cx.xvu ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 493

other than the Anti-Christ. And, as in 2 Thess. ii. 3-10, the Anti-
Christ is expected to set himself up as supreme in the Temple of
Jerusalem until the real Christ appears from heaven to destroy
him and all his works.

But if, when Mark wrote, the Anti-Christ was expected to
appear in the Temple at Jerusalem, the presumption is that the
Temple was still standing. Since the same expectation is to be
found in 2 Thessalonians, written about A.D. 52, we have con-
clusive evidence that the belief was current among Christians at
least a dozen years before Nero’s persecution. It would seem,
then, that the Apocalypse of Mk. xiii., so far from proving, as
was once thought, that the Gospel was written after the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, is more naturally explicable if it
was written before that event. Indeed, the Little Apocalypse
may well have been composed some years before Mark wrote ;
and I would venture the suggestion that it, or something very
like it, was known to Paul, and was accepted by him too as an
authentic utterance of Jesus. That at any rate would explain
the teaching about the Man of Sin in 2 Thessalonians. This ex-
pectation of an Anti-Christ is not at all the kind of thing which
a mind like Paul’s would have spontaneously introduced into
Christian teaching ; for it was precisely the original and creative
element in Paul’s thought which, as time went on, drove him to
make less and less of Apocalyptic.

But even if the Little Apocalypse was already a document of
some age and authority, it would have been contrary to the
editorial methods of the time had Mark incorporated it in his
Gospel without adding some minor touches to emphasise its
appropriateness to the contemporary situation. The convenient
modern devices of explanatory footnotes, inverted commas.
different forms of type, etc., had not been invented; and the
ancient historian could not without clumsy circumlocution dis
tinguish between the actual text of an authority and his own
interpretation. An age which enjoys these facilities properly
demands that they shall be scrupulously used, but it ought not

494 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

to condemn the literary conscience of an age in which they were
unknown. But while we have no right to condemn ancient
writers for conforming to the usage of their time, we must always,
in framing historical conclusions, be on the look-out to make
adequate allowance for the difference between their methods and
our own.

Now if we compare Lk. xxi. 20-24 with Mk. xiii. 14-20, we
see how Luke has not scrupled to modify the phraseology of
the Abomination of Desolation passage so as to make quite
clear (what he, of course, with his presuppositions believed to
be the true explanation) that the words were really intended to
be a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem—an event which must,
then, have taken place in the interval between the publication of
Mark’s Gospel and the time at which he was himself writing.

It is probable that Mark, in his turn, had introduced similar
modifications in reproducing the text which stood in the original
Apocalypse, especially in the section xii. 9-13. Much of this
chapter (e.g. 7-8, 24-27) is part of the commonplace of
Apocalyptic tradition. But the phrase “ye shall stand before
governors and kings for my name’s sake ”’ is so suggestive of the
experience of Paul; the idea of “ witness,” resulting from this, so
resembles what Paul himself (2 Tim. iv. 17) regards as having
been the divine intention in overruling the circumstances of his
preliminary trial, and verses 12 and 13 might so well be an allusion
to the Neronian persecution, that one suspects that Mark has
retouched the older source to some extent.! If so, the traditional
date, after the death of Peter and Paul, is subtly reflected in
the text in the phrases just quoted.

1 The rebellion of children against their parents appears Micah vii. 6. In
Lk. xii. 53 the emphasis is rather on divisions resulting from some members of
a family accepting, others rejecting, Christ. Mt. x. 34-36 looks like a confla-
tion of Lk. xii. 49-53 (i.e. Q) with the passage in Micah. Mk. xiii. 12f. reads
like a parallel version of the Q saying, slightly modified by a recollection of the
delation by the Christians first arrested of further victims and the accusation
of odiwm humani generis, which Tacitus mentions Ann. xv. 14.

CH. XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 495

THE GOSPEL AND THE APOSTLE

Rome was the most convenient “ distributing centre ”’ for the
civilised world. The Christian mate of an Alexandrian grain
ship, or the confidential freedman of some Antiochene merchant
at Rome on his master’s business, would hear a reading from the
new Gospel at some Sunday gathering. At once he would take
steps to acquire a copy of such a treasure to take back to his
fellow-Christians at home. But I doubt whether things would
have been thus left to chance. The whole Church at this epoch
was passionately missionary in character; and it is very likely
that the leaders of the Roman Church themselves took measures,
and that without delay, to share their treasures, Epistles as well
as Gospel, with the other churches—and that is how Mark came
to be a source drawn upon by the authors of the other Gospels.

An interval of something like thirty-five years seems to have
elapsed between the Crucifixion and the publication of what, so
far as we know, was the earliest Life of Christ. That the Church
should have been content to wait so long for a thing which seems
to us a sine qua non of Christian teaching is a fact that calls for
explanation. The question is one to which inadequate attention
has been given. Indeed, there are scholars who go out of their
way to make it more acute by trying to drag down the date of
this Gospel to the latest possible date. These do not perceive
that to the historian the real problem is how to explain the
lateness of the date to which the Church tradition assigns its
official Lives of the Founder; and not only that, but also to
account for the naive and primitive character of the representa-
tion of Christ embodied in Mark, assuming it to have been written
after many years of the development of cultus and theological
speculation of the kind presupposed in the Epistles of Paul.
Ecclesiastically, even if it be assigned to a.p. 65, the Gospel of
Mark was already ten years out of date, so to speak, at the time
that it was written. Its naiveté and primitive characteristics
can only be explained by the dependence of its author on early

496 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

and unsophisticated tradition. But there are two reasons which,
taken together, are perhaps sufficient to account for the late date
of the appearance of the earliest Life of Christ.

(1) The first disciples were brought up in Jewish habits.
Jewish religious tradition, while treasuring with the utmost care
the words of a great teacher, was strangely indifferent to the
biographical interest. No “ Life” of any Prophet or Rabbi has
been preserved. The Greeks and Romans, on the other hand,
were intensely interested in biography—particularly so at this
period, witness the names of Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus.
This striking contrast will partly explain why the earliest Life
of Christ was written in a Gentile Church, and also why the
writing of it was postponed until the great leaders who were
dominated by Jewish tradition had passed away.

(2) The primitive Church lived in daily expectation of that
visible return of Christ which would bring the present world order
to an end. They believed that their utmost efforts should be
directed towards bringing the knowledge of a few central truths
to as many as possible before it was too late and repentance
would be fruitless since the Judgement had begun. At a time
when any day might be the last day, it would have seemed absurd
to compile history for the benefit of a posterity which would never
be born. But as the years passed by it was inevitable, human
nature being what it is, that the past and the remoter future
should both reassume their normal importance. Theoretically
Christians still thought the End at hand, practically it interested
them less. But when a change in the focus of interest is taking
place in the subconscious mind, it usually needs some kind of
shock to bring about such conscious realisation of the change
as will lead to definite action. Such a shock came to the Roman
Church with the Neronian persecution. Catastrophe and tribula-
tion, as a prelude to the supernatural Messianic deliverance, was

1 Burkitt has called attention to the originality of Mark as the inventor
of the biography type of Gospel, Earliest Sources of the Life of Jesus,? p. 128
(Constable, 1922). See also my remarks, Oxford Studies, p. 216 f.

OH, XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 497

part of the Apocalyptic expectation which the Church had
inherited from Judaism. Catastrophe and tribulation of an
unheard-of character had supervened, but the End had not. And
the great leaders of the first generation, the only two Apostles
whom the Gentile world had ever really known, had passed away.
For the first time since the Day of Pentecost a Christian com-
munity, instead of concentrating its gaze wholly upon the future,
finds it necessary to look backward. The Church of Rome be-
comes interested in history ; it demands at least a record of the
Founder’s life.

The Gospel of Mark is the response to that demand. The
story told by Clement of Alexandria (ap. Eus. H.E. vi. 14), how the
Roman Christians besought Mark, as the disciple of Peter, to pro-
duce such an account, may be only a conjecture. But since Mark
seems to have been in Rome about this time (2 Tim. iv. 11), it is
exactly what we should have expected to occur, though we need
not, like Clement, suppose that everything in Mark’s Gospel was
derived from Peter. Once a Gospel like that of Mark had been
composed, its utility and interest—more than that, its indis-
pensability—would have been obvious to all. Christians would
have wondered, just as we to-day wonder, how the churches had
managed to get along at all without some such work. Every-
where, throughout the Empire, a Life of Christ by a disciple of
Peter would have been hailed as the satisfaction of what had
been for long a half-conscious need.

The world-wide circulation of Mark affords an easy and
natural explanation of. what, from the purely linguistic point of
view, is the rather curious usage by which the word “ Gospel ”
became the technical name for a biography of Christ. The
Greek word evangelion means simply “ good news,” and in the
New Testament it is always used in its original sense of the
good news of the Christian message. Commentators have tried
elaborately to trace a gradual evolution in the meaning of the
word until it acquired this new usage. No such gradual evolu-

tion is necessary, or even probable. Among the Jews it was a
2K

498 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

regular practice to refer to books, or sections of books, by a
striking word which occurred in the opening sentence. That is
how Genesis and Exodus derived the titles by which they are
known in the Hebrew Bible, 1.6. “ In the Beginning ” and “ (these
are the) Names.” As soon as portions of Mark were read in the
services of the Church—and that would be at once—it would be
necessary to have a name to distinguish this reading from that
of an Old Testament book. Mark opens with the words ἀρχὴ
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “ The beginning of the Gospel.”’ ἀρχή would be
too like the Hebrew name for Genesis, so εὐαγγέλιον (nom.) would
be an obvious title. When, fifteen or twenty years later, other
Lives of Christ came into existence, this use of “Gospel”
as a title would be an old-established custom and would be
applied to them also. Then it would become necessary to dis-
tinguish these “Gospels” from one another—hence the usage
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον, κατὰ Λουκᾶν, the Gospel according
to Mark, to Luke, ete.

There is a problem in early Church history which few historians
have frankly faced, and which those who have tried to date
the books of the New Testament in an unreal abstraction from
their environment in history have strangely felt themselves
absolved from even raising. How are we to account for that
broad general consensus on the main lines of belief and practice
to be found, amid much local diversity, throughout the loose
federation of communities known as the Catholic Church which
appears all over the Roman Empire by the end of the second
century ?

Consider the weakness of the Christian position, once the
generation contemporary with the Apostles had passed away,
and when Jerusalem, the natural local centre, was destroyed.
What common basis of unity was there? What was there to
point out some one common guiding and controlling principle
or line of development ? There was the Old Testament. That
was for many purposes of unique value, but it gave little clear
guidance towards the solution of the really burning problems of

cx.xvt ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 499

the early Church. Was the Law of Moses binding on Christians,
and, if not, why not? Was Christ a merely human Messiah
exalted to the right hand of God, or was He the pre-existent Son
of God incarnate ? Was the body of Christ real human flesh
and blood, or formed of some divine impassible material ? Did
Christ really suffer and die upon the Cross, or was this merely
semblance ? Does the Church teach the immortality of the soul
alone, or the resurrection of the body also, and, if so, in what
sense ? These were the questions that agitated the Christian
communities scattered over the Roman world ; these were the
points on which heresies and schisms arose. For their solution
the Churches were compelled to turn, not to the Old Testament,
but Mark, Romans, and 1 Corinthians. Incidentally 1 Corinthians,
with its account of the Resurrection Appearances, made up for the
most striking lack in Mark. So diverse and conflicting were the
influences operating in different parts of the Roman world that,
had the Church possessed no other literature than the Old
Testament to provide a common standard of practice and
belief, no kind of union could have been maintained. It was
the acceptance by the leading Churches at an early date of an
authoritative Life of Christ, interpreted in the light of the great
Epistles of Paul, that made it possible for some kind of unity
in the direction of doctrinal development to be preserved.

Thus at once, from sheer necessity, the “Gospel and the
Apostle,” the legacy of Peter and of Paul, became the rudder of
the Church. Later on, the Gospel becomes a fourfold one, and
the collection of Apostolic writings expands ; but the nucleus of
the New Testament in both its great divisions is there before
the catastrophe of a.p. 70.

1 Τ am inclined to think Ephesians also was included in the earliest Corpus
Paulinum ; it has probably influenced Clement and Hermas, and certainly the
other Apostolic Fathers; if intended as a “ circular letter,” a copy would have
been kept for use in Rome. There are possible traces of Philippians in Clement.
On the development of Pauline canon see p. 526 f.

500 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

PART I1—MATTHEW

Tur ANTIOCHENE ORIGIN OF MatTHEW

The Patristic evidence that Matthew was written in Palestine
in Hebrew is impressive—until we reflect that all the Fathers
had read the statement of Irenaeus, quoted p. 8 (either in the
original or as reproduced by Eusebius), and that Irenaeus him-
self had read Papias’ dictum on τὰ λόγια. Thus the tradition
can be traced back to a single root ; and, quite apart from the
correctness of our interpretation of Papias, it cannot be authentic,
for our Gospel of Matthew being based on the Greek Mark cannot
be a translation from the Aramaic. At the same time the
evidence of Irenaeus and Papias has a negative value. It proves
that Matthew was not produced either in Rome or in Asia Minor,
but was believed to have originally come from the Kast.

We can be sure, however, that Matthew originated in an
important Church for the simple reason that, apart from the
title, which, of course, forms no part of the original text, it is
anonymous. The significance of this anonymity is apt to be
overlooked. The Apocryphal Gospels all try to claim authority
by definite and often reiterated assertions of Apostolic author-
ship in the text itself. The spurious Gospel of Peter (2nd
century A.D.), for instance, goes out of its way to introduce “1,
Simon Peter,” just before the account of the Resurrection.
Matthew is anonymous; it makes no claim to authority, gives
no hint of authorship. Now a poem or a pamphlet may lose
little by being anonymous—sometimes, indeed, it may gain in
effect ; but a record of events, many of them of a marvellous
description, purporting to give an authentic account of one whose
deeds, words, and divine nature were a matter of acute contro-
versy, would carry no weight at all if by an unknown author.
In a work of this kind, therefore, anonymity implies that it was
originally compiled for the use of some particular church which

cx.xvt ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 501

accepted it at once as a reliable authority, simply because it
knew and had confidence in the person or committee who pro-
duced it. It is improbable that in the first instance direct
Apostolic authorship was ascribed to the First Gospel. But
the substitution of the name Matthew for the Levi of Mark
(Mt. viii. 9)—confirmed by the back reference “Matthew the
publican ” (x. 3)—makes him the one apostle, besides the two
pairs of brothers, of whom any incident is recorded. This
forcible effort to make Matthew prominent in the story is most
naturally explained, if the author of the Gospel knew one of
his sources to be the work of that Apostle. If, however, the
Gospel incorporated a document which was popularly ascribed to
Matthew (I suggest Q), the book as a whole would soon come to
be regarded as his in the Church for which it was first written.
But the Gospel would not have been generally accepted as
Apostolic unless it had been backed by one of the great Churches ;
for the Canon of the Gospels was fixed in the second century for
the express purpose of excluding Gnostic Gospels which, like
that of Peter, not only were ascribed by certain persons to
Apostles, but affirmed the claim in their text. People often
talk as if the early Church accepted with avidity any and every
book as Apostolic. The evidence points the other way. The
Church in the second century had taken fright ; and the primary
purpose of the Canon was to exclude. It took centuries for
2 Peter and James, documents of considerable antiquity and un-
impeachable orthodoxy, to be generally received, and even the
backing of Alexandria could not induce Rome to accept Hebrews
as Pauline till the time of Athanasius. That the Church accepted
as Apostolic certain writings which in point of fact were not so,
is undoubted—the Gospel we are discussing is an instance.
But we quite misconceive its attitude unless we recognise that
the production by the Gnostics of a quantity of literature claim-
ing Apostolic authorship made the Churches, especially the
Church of Rome, almost as suspicious of such a claim as a modern
critic—though the test of authenticity applied was not the same.

502 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

For the determination of Apostolic Doctrine the Church appealed
against the Gnostics to the open tradition of the Apostolic Sees ;
similarly for the determination of the genuineness of writings
reputed Apostolic it appealed to the same tradition. The
tradition of either Antioch, Ephesus, or Rome would bea suffi-
cient guarantee of Apostolic authorship—but it is doubtful
whether anything less than that would have sufficed.

Matthew, then, must have been vouched for as Apostolic by
some very important Church. But which Church could this be ?
Of the greater Churches all but Antioch are excluded. Rome and
Ephesus have been already ruled out. Alexandria is an im-
possible city in which to place the most Judaistic of the Gospels ;
Barnabas, the only certainly Alexandrian writing we possess of
early date, is violently anti-Jewish in feeling; and all we know
of the early history of that Church shows that its sympathies
were, if anything, in the Gnostic direction. Caesarea has been
suggested by some scholars. But we have only to look at the
map to see that the official Gospel of a Church which was the port
of entry of Samaria was not very likely to have contained the
command, “Enter not into any city of the Samaritans,” for
its author had no scruples in omitting anything likely to cause
apologetic difficulty. Besides, as we have seen already, Caesarea
is clearly marked out as the home of the specifically Lucan
tradition.

There is a further consideration, which seems to me to rule
out, not only Caesarea, but any Church in Palestine! The
narratives peculiar to Matthew are of quite a different character
from those peculiar to Luke. Leaving out of account for the
moment the Infancy, the only story peculiar to Matthew which
stands, so to speak, “ on its own legs” is the Stater in the Fish’s
Mouth. The rest are all, in a way, parasitic; they stand to
Mark as the mistletoe to the oak. The story of Peter walking

1 Burkitt points out (J.7.S., July 1913, p. 545) that the use of the verb

ἐπιφώσκειν, Mt, xxviii. 1, implies the Gentile mode of reckoning time, and
suggests Antioch.

ox.xvt ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 503

on the water, for example, is an expansion of the Marcan story
of Christ walking on the water, and implies the previous existence
of the Marcan story. Matthew’s additions to the Passion story
are similarly of the nature of embellishments of the Marcan
account which presuppose Mark as their basis. It is noteworthy
that not a single one of them looks like a genuine historical
tradition ; while some of them are clearly legendary, e.g.1 the
temporary resurrection of saints in Jerusalem at the time of the
Rending of the Veil, or Pilate’s washing his hands before the multi-
tude—an action as probable in a Roman governor as in a British
civil servant in India. The commonest device of the preacher
or Sunday School teacher who wishes to bring an incident of
Scripture vividly before the minds of his audience is to retell the
story with little additions derived from his own imaginative
reconstruction of the scene. This kind of thing was familiar to
the Rabbis in the popular exposition of the Old Testament, so
much so that it has a technical name, “ Haggada.”” The additions
which Matthew makes to Mark’s story of the Passion are pre-
cisely analogous to the Rabbinic Haggada of Old Testament
stories. It is improbable that the editor of Matthew made them
up himself; rather they represent the “‘ happy thoughts ” of a
long series of preachers and teachers. Those which happened to
“catch on”’ would be remembered ; in the course of time their
“ Haggadic”’ origins would be forgotten and they would be
accepted as authentic traditions. But if this is so, Mark must
have been known in the Church where Matthew wrote long enough
to have become an established authority—a document which
teachers and preachers expounded by methods familiar in the
exposition of Scripture. Incidentally I may remark that this
compels us to suppose a considerable interval of time between
the composition of Mark and Matthew. Ten years seems an
absolute minimum, and twenty would be none too many.

But, if the origin of Matthew must be sought in an important
Church outside Palestine, Antioch is the only one left. And to

1 Mt. xxvii. 51-53, 24-25.

504 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. ΤΥ

the view that Matthew was written there, there are no objections.
Antioch must have had a Gospel, and the guarantee by a Church
of that importance is the best explanation of an anonymous
work being accepted as indubitably Apostolic by Rome and the
other Churches. Again, an Antiochene origin would account for
the extraordinary interest shown by its author in the doings and
in the primacy of Peter, who is far more prominent in this Gospel
than in Mark, although that was written by his own disciple.
Antioch follows Peter and stands for the via media between the
Judaistic intolerance of those who called James master and the
all but antinomian liberty claimed by some of the followers of
Paul. Lastly, in the Church of Antioch, a city with an enor-
mous Jewish population, we seem to have just the atmosphere
of the Gospel of Matthew, which, though frankly recognising
that Christianity is for all nations, is yet saturated with Jewish
feeling, preserves so many sayings of a particularist Jewish
Christian character, and altogether is less touched by the spirit
of Paul than any other book in the New Testament. For
Matthew Christianity is the “ new Law.”

One infinitesimal point in favour of an Antiochene origin may
be added: the stater varied in weight and value in different
districts. The commentators say that only in Antioch and
Damascus did the official stater exactly equal two didrachmae,
as is implied in Mt. xvii. 24-27. The story itself reads like an
adaptation of a popular folk story, of which one version appears
as the Ring of Polycrates ;1 and it solves a problem which the —
Jew of the Dispersion in a city like Antioch must, when converted
to Christianity, face, whether or no he should continue to pay
the annual levy of the Temple Tax.

EvIpENCE oF IGNATIUS
The conjecture that Matthew is the Gospel of the Church of
Antioch is borne out by the use made of it in the epistles of
1 Herodotus, bk. iii, 41-42.

cH. XVI ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 505

Ignatius, Bishop of that city (c. 115). Ignatius has a couple of
possible allusions to Luke, but they are very uncertain. He has
some rather remarkable points of contact with John; but even
if these are quotations, he quotes John rarely, and refrains from
doing so in certain doctrinal arguments where we should have
expected it if he regarded the Fourth Gospel as an authority.
But in his seven short letters there are about fifteen passages
which look like reminiscences of Matthew.

Sometimes the language of Ignatius recalls sayings which
occur in Mark or Luke as well as Matthew; but in these cases
his wording is usually nearer to Matthew’s version. Six of the
clearest reminiscences are of passages peculiar to Matthew—
two of them being passages which critics unanimously attribute
to the editor of Matthew rather than to his sources, e.g. “‘ being
baptized by John in order that all righteousness might be ful-
filled in him” (Ignat. Smyrn. i. 1; cf. Mt. iii. 15); “ bear all
men as the Lord does thee . . . bear the sicknesses of all”
(Polyc. i. 2-3; cf. Mt. vii. 17). Other passages are significant,
less from the fact that they are reminiscences than from the
manner of the reminiscence. “ Be thou wise in all ways as a
serpent, and at all times harmless as a dove” (Polyc. ii. 2;
ef. Mt. x. 16); “ For if the prayer of one and a second has such
avail” (Eph. v. 2=Mt. xviii. 19-20). The point of allusions in
this style consists precisely in the fact that, while recalling, they
slightly modify, the original wording of a well-known saying to
adapt it to the reader’s situation. They would have been point-
less unless that original wording was to be found in a book already
accepted as a classic, a knowledge of which the writer could take
for granted in his readers.

Ignatius, again, is the only one of the Apostolic Fathers who
refers to the Virgin Birth—and he does so several times and
lays stress on its importance (Eph. xviii. 2, xix. 1; Smyrn. i. 1;

1 For complete list of parallels cf. The New Testament in the Apostolic
Fathers, by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology (Clarendon
Press, 1905). N.B. esp. φυτεία πατρός Trall, xi. 1; Philad. iii. 1; cf. Mt. xv. 13.

506 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

Trall. ix. 1). Now Matthew has a great deal to say about the
virginity of Mary; but in Luke (cf. p. 267 f.) it is extraordinarily
little emphasised. Specially significant is the passage in which
Ignatius congratulates the Christians of Smyrna on their ortho-
doxy in that they are “ fully persuaded as touching our Lord that
He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son
of God of the Divine Will, truly born of a virgin and baptized by
John that all righteousness might be fulfilled in him” (Smyrn. 1).
Here three points characteristic of Matthew come together—
Davidic descent, virgin birth, baptism to “ fulfil all righteous-
ness,” of which the last is only found in Matthew, while Matthew
opens his Gospel with the words, “The genealogy of Jesus
Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham,” in contrast to
Luke who lays no special stress on David.

Lastly, Ignatius frequently speaks of “the Gospel” as if
this were the name of a book. Certain heretics, he tells us, say
ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις [v.l. ἀρχαίοις] εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ov
πιστεύω (Philad. viii. 2): “If I find it not in the archives (v.l.
ancient writings) I believe it not in the Gospel.’’ Evidently “the
Gospel” is the title of a book, the authority of which they are
not prepared to put on the same level as the ancient Scriptures.
Just before this, the triad, “the Gospel,” “the apostles,” and
“the prophets ” are put side by side in a way which makes the best
sense if these are read as titles of sacred books (Philad. v. 1-2).
Lightfoot and Harnack, influenced by the a priori notion that
this use of the word Gospel must have been a gradual develop-
ment and is therefore improbable at this date, say that the usage
here is transitional. But this whittling away of the natural
meaning of the passages is quite unnecessary. If the use of the
term “‘Gospel” to denote a Life of Christ originated (as suggested
p. 497 f.), owing to the occurrence of the word “ Gospel” in the
opening verse of Mark, out of the Jewish practice of using the
first striking word of a book as its title, no period of develop-
ment is required. At once, from the earliest time, Mark would
have been spoken of as “the Gospel.”” When Matthew was

OH. XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 507

written, the author or committee of authors who produced it
aimed at producing a new and enlarged edition of Mark, that is
to say, Matthew was intended to supersede Mark; and in the
Church of its origin it no doubt did so for a time, though later on
Mark would be reintroduced as part of the Four Gospel Canon
accepted by the whole Church. Hence as soon as Matthew was
published the title “the Gospel” (see also p. 559 n.) would
naturally be transferred to it from Mark.

The real significance, then, of the use of the term “‘the Gospel”
in Ignatius is that it probably implies that at Antioch in his
day there was as yet only one Gospel recognised as “‘ the Gospel ””
by the Church—a state of things which still existed among
Aramaic-speaking Christians in Jerome’s time. And since,
whether or no Ignatius had glanced through other Gospels,
Matthew is certainly the one he knew best, it is a reasonable
inference that when he speaks of the Gospel he means Matthew.

QUOTATIONS IN THE DIDACHE

The Didache presents a number of difficult problems, and these
have been made more difficult owing to the fact.that certain dis-
tinguished scholars have allowed themselves the luxury of propos-
ing what I can only call “fancy solutions.” + For the purposes
of what follows I shall assume as reasonably certain (a) that it
arose somewhere in Syria or Palestine; (b) that, apart from
certain (probable) interpolations, it is not later than a.p. 100.

The author of the Didache seems not only to have read
Matthew, but also, like Ignatius, to refer to it under the title of
“The Gospel.” But one passage looks as if, alongside of the
official Gospel, there still existed an oral tradition of sayings
of our Lord, perhaps derived from recollections of Q.

1 The student will find a fair and well-judged statement of the facts in
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, art. Didache. Prof, Turner dates it
A.D. 80-100 (Studies in Harly Church History, Oxford, 1912, p. 31); and (p. 87.)

suggests that Ignatius knew it. To his parallels I would add Mag. ν. 1 (the
Two Ways). Does ἀποστόλοις (Philad. v. 1) = Paul’s epistles + Didache ?

508 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

For the purpose of our study there are certain passages the
text of which is not sufficiently certain to bear the weight of an
important conclusion. (a) The section i. 2-111. 1 is omitted in
the Latin version as well as in the related documents Barnabas
and the Apostolic Church Order, and is probably a very early
interpolation. (b) The same may be true of the Matthean
saying, “ Give not what is holy to the dogs” (Did. ix. 5), since
it does not occur in the parallel section of the Apostolic Constitu-
tions which incorporates the Didache almost entire. (c) The
command to baptize “in the name of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit,” which occurs in Matthew only in the New
Testament, is a point of contact between the Didache and that
Gospel ; but in view of the importance attached in later times
to baptism in the name of the Trinity, we may be pretty sure
that, even if the original author of the Didache had written
something different, later scribes would have substituted the
orthodox formula. Obviously, then, the passage cannot be
quoted as evidence that the author had read Matthew.

There remain, however, certain reminiscences or allusions to
texts in Matthew which are so deeply embedded in the argument
of their context in the Didache that they cannot be suspected of
being later interpolations.

(1) Did. viii. 1 f., ““ And let not your fastings be with the
hypocrites, for they fast on the second and third day of the week ;
but do ye keep your fast on the fourth and on the Friday
(παρασκευή). Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord
commanded in his Gospel thus pray ye: Our Father,” etc. (the
Lord’s Prayer practically as in Matthew). The relation of this
passage to Mt. vi.5-16isclear. Itisaninterpretation according to
the letter, but in flagrant discord with the spirit, of the Sermon on
the Mount. Such interpretations only arise where there is a letter
to misinterpret, and would compel us to assume that the words
stood in some recognised official document, even if the author did
not expressly quote them as from “his (1.6. the Lord’s) Gospel.”

(2) Did. xi. 3-4, “ But concerning the apostles and prophets,

cx.xvt ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 509

so do ye according to the ordinances of the Gospel. Let every
apostle, when he cometh to you, be received as the Lord.”
Here “the Gospel” is referred to as containing an ordinance
concerning the reception of touring “apostles.” It is difficult
not to see here a direct allusion to the Address to Apostles
about to go on a Mission Tour (Mt. x.), and in the words “ Let
every apostle coming to you be received as the Lord”’ a particular
reference to Mt. x. 40, “ He that receiveth you receiveth me,
and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”

(3) Did. xi. 7, “And every prophet speaking in the Spirit ye
shall not try nor judge ; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this
sin shall not be forgiven.” The saying referred to occurs in all
three Synoptists; but the application of it in the Didache implies
knowledge of it in a context like that in Matthew or Mark rather
than as in Luke. The wording agrees with Matthew against
Mark ; and this agreement is unusually significant because, as a
glance at a synopsis of the Gospels will show, the wording in
Matthew (xii. 31f.) is determined by the fact that he is conflating
Mark (iii. 28-29) with Q (Lk. xii. 10), so that this precise wording is
individual to Matthew, since no two people would independently
hit upon the same way of conflating two parallel sources.

(4) Did. xii. 1, “Every true prophet desiring to settle
amongst you is worthy of his food. In like manner a true teacher
is also worthy, like the labourer, of his food.” The way in
which the saying “ The labourer is worthy of his food ”’ is referred
to implies that it was familiar im zs application to Christian
missionaries, 2.6. as it appears in Mt. x. 10. In Luke’s version,
though the context is similar, the word “hire” is substituted
for “ food’ ; and there is the same substitution in 1 Tim. v. 18.

(5) Did. xiv. 2, “ Let no man having his dispute with his
fellow join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that
your sacrifice may not be defiled.” There is a significant relation
between “that your sacrifice may not be defiled” and “ leave
there thy gift before the altar” (Mt. v. 24); the reference in
Matthew to the Jewish sacrifices has been spiritualised to refer

510 THE FOUR GOSPELS ‘PT. IV

to the Christian Eucharist. But such a reference implies that the
Didache is related to a saying like that in Matthew as commentary
to text ; it must therefore have stood in some document regarded
as authoritative by readers of the Didache.

(6) Did. xv. 3, “And reprove (ἐλέγχετε) one another, not in
anger but in peace, as ye find in the Gospel ’’—an express
reference to “the Gospel” for further instructions in regard to
procedure, 1.6. to ἔλεγξον αὐτὸν «rr. (Mt. xvii. 15 ff.). The
author continues, “ But your prayer and your almsgiving
(cf. Mt. vi. 2-15) and all your deeds, so do ye as ye find in the
Gospel of our Lord.” With this reiterated reference to “the
Gospel” he concludes his general instructions. It is as if he
said, “The present work is intended merely as an introduction
to Christian practice ; for a full treatment you must refer to the
Gospel, especially the Sermon on the Mount.”

(7) Did. xvi. The book ends with an Apocalyptic passage—
obviously based on Matthew :

Be watchful for your life ; let not your lamps go out (Mt. xxv. 8) and
your loins be ungirded (Lk. xii. 35), but be ye ready ; for ye know not the
hour in which our Lord cometh (Mt. xxiv. 42,44). And ye shall gather
yourselves together frequently, seeking what is fitting for your souls ;
for the whole time of your faith shall not profit you, if ye be not
perfected at the last season. For in the last days the false prophets
and corrupters shall be multzplied, and the sheep shall be turned into
wolves, and love shall be turned into hate (Mt. xxiv. 11 f., 24). Foras
ἀνομία increaseth, they shall hate one another (Mt. xxiv. 10,12) and shall
persecute and deliwwer up. And then the World-deceiver shall appear
asa Son of God, and shall work signs and wonders (Mt. xxiv.30; Mt. xxiv.
24), and the earth shall be delivered into his hands ; and he shall do
unholy things, which have never been (Mt. xxiv. 21) since the world
began. Then all created mankind shall come to the fire of testing,
and many shall be offended and perish ; but they that endure in their
faith shall be saved (Mt. xxiv. 13) by the Curse Himself. And then
shall the signs of the Truth appear (Mt. xxiv. 30); first a sign of a
rift in the heaven, then a sign of a voice of a trumpet (Mt. xxiv. 31),
and thirdly a resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it was
said (Zech. xiv. 5): ‘The Lord shall come and all His saints with
Him.” Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of
heaven (Mt. xxiv. 30).

OH, XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 511

Passages of which the reference number is underlined occur only
in Matthew.

In the foregoing parallels there is one passage, and one only,
which is closer to Luke than to Matthew, “‘ and your loins,”’ etc.
(cf. Lk. xii. 35). But Lk. xii. 35-38 is a passage which on other
grounds we assigned to Q (p. 279), accounting for its omission
by Matthew by the fact that its moral, and even some of its
language, occurs in a more striking form in the parable of the
Virgins. If our hypothesis that Q was the original gospel of the
Church of Antioch be correct, and if the Didache was composed
in Syria, for some years after Matthew was written certain
sayings would still be remembered in their Q form. A work like
the Didache would certainly be composed by senior members of
the Church in whose recollection turns of phrase in the older
document would be likely to be deeply embedded, and all the
quotations in the Didache are clearly made from memory.}

To sum up. Both Ignatius and the Didache, the earliest
Syrian documents we possess, habitually speak of “ the Gospel ”’
as if it was the name of a book having a certain authority ;
also whenever the same sayings occur in Matthew and in either
of these, their versions are always secondary. They stand to
Matthew as the preacher to his text.

THE PETRINE COMPROMISE

I proceed now to show that the hypothesis of an Antiochene
origin illuminates the facts which were revealed by our critical
analysis of the sources of the Gospel, and certain features in the
author’s presentation of the Apocalyptic hope.

The growing hatred of Rome, which led to the Jewish revolt
of 64, was accompanied by a revival of religious fanaticism.
Naturally, nationalism and religion were the same thing to the
Jew. Hitherto the Palestinian Christians, who zealously ob-
served the Law of Moses and worshipped in the Temple, of whom

1 The section Did. i. 2-iii. 1 presents close parallels with both Mt. v. 39-47 and
Lk. vi. 27-33. If not an interpolation, this also is best explained as a conflation
of Matthew and Q, since (p. 249 ff.) Luke is here nearer to Q than Matthew.

512 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

James “‘ the Just,” the brother of the Lord, was the leader, had
been tolerated. But in the year 62 James was massacred by
the mob. And in obedience, we are told by Eusebius, to an
oracle, most of the Jerusalem Christians fled across the Jordan
to Pella before the Roman armies began the actual siege. During
the first persecution of Christians in Jerusalem—that which
followed the death of Stephen—some had fled to Antioch ; and it
was they (Acts xi. 19 f.) who founded the Church there. What
more natural than that some of the refugees from this far worse
persecution should make their escape to the same Church—a
Church which had always (as for instance in the great famine of 46
foretold by Agabus (Acts xi. 28)) shown such practical sympathy
with fellow-Christians in Jerusalem ?

As so often in history, the refugees would bring with them
the books they valued most. If there were already in use in the
Jerusalem Church written summaries of our Lord’s teaching,
these would be among them. If, as is not impossible, Jerusalem
had been still content with collections of His sayings learnt by
heart, the retentive memories of the refugees would still have
much which would be of great interest to the brethren at Antioch.
And their tradition, coming as it did with all the prestige of
the parent Church of Christendom, would seem to the elders at
Antioch far too precious not to be rendered into Greek and set
down in writing without more delay.

But this tradition, corresponding to that element in Matthew
which we have styled M, included sayings of a strongly Judaistic
character. The fact is one which has often been misconceived.
It cannot be too emphatically insisted that this element in
Matthew reflects, not primitive Jewish Christianity, but a later
Judaistic reaction against the Petro-Pauline liberalism in the
matter of the Gentile Mission and the observance of the Law.
At Antioch, as elsewhere, there were parties in the Church: the
immediate result of the advent of the Jerusalem refugees would
be to strengthen the hand of the party of the stricter observance
of the Law. It was very hard not to accept as Apostolic a

OH. XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 513

tradition which came authenticated, as it were, by the recent
martyrdom of James.

Mark’s Gospel, coming from Rome practically at the same
time, would be hailed at once by the more liberal and pro-Gentile
party as the Gospel of Antioch’s own Apostle.

Q, so far as we can judge, was fairly neutral on the legalistic
issue, and, we have seen, Q may well have been the original Gospel-
document of the Church of Antioch ; at any rate Q is admittedly
older, probably a good deal older, than Mark, and, whatever
its original language, the same Greek version was known to
“Matthew ” as to Luke, so that, even if this Greek translation
was not produced in Antioch, the greatest Greek-speaking Church
of Syria, it would have reached there at a very early date.

But for some years Mark and M would have existed side
by side, and would have been read together with a consciousness
of partisanship something like that which in the eighteenth
century was attached to the “ Whig” and “ Tory ” collects for
the King in the Anglican Communion Service. Religious con-
servatism has always great capacity of resistance; but in the
Jew—especially as regards the Law for which he and his fathers
have bled for centuries—this capacity is raised to the nth power.
As late as the fourth century a large section of the vernacular
Jewish Christians of Palestine rejected the Hpistles of Paul; but
at Antioch in the quarter of a century that followed the Fall of
Jerusalem circumstances were unusually favourable to concilia-
tion. (1) The living spirit of the Christian mission had not yet
lost its original momentum. (2) It was known that Peter, Paul,
and James, the revered leaders of the different parties, had in the
last resort never repudiated one another ; and within a year or two
of one another all three had died for Christ. (3) The destruction
of the Temple in 70 meant that at least half the requirements of
the Law could no longer be fulfilled. Did this mean that Paul
was right then after all, and that Christ had intended to supersede
the Law? (4) It daily appeared that the bitterest of all the
enemies of Christianity were the Jews who stood by the old Law.

21,

514 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

All these circumstances were favourable to a rapprochement
between the parties in the Church. Neither side could abandon
accepted records of the teaching of Christ ; but the possibility
that there had been some misinterpretation of the sayings most
used in controversy could be explored. Perhaps another mean-
ing could be found for those apparently Judaistic words of
Christ which the James party were always quoting.

By the time that Matthew wrote, a new exegesis which could
reconcile the parties had been evolved. It was admitted on the
one hand that the Master had said, ‘‘ I was not sent but unto the
lost sheep of the house of Israel” ; that He regarded the healing
of a Syro-Phoenician as an exception, and that He had not
Himself (as Mark’s story would imply), even on that occasion,
stepped outside the sacred soil of Palestine—for the woman had
come across the border to Him (Mt. xv. 22). It was conceded
also by the liberal party that in His first Mission Charge He had
forbidden the Twelve to go into any way of the Gentiles or any
city of the Samaritans (Mt. x. 6); in return, the other side ad-
mitted that this limitation was only intended for the time during
which He walked the earth ; after His Resurrection He had on
the contrary bade them “go and make disciples of all the
nations” (xxvill. 19). Again, as the context (Mt. vii. 11) in which
the prophecy is placed makes clear (quite a different one from
that which, from its position in Luke (xii. 28), we may con-
clude was original in Q), it was now agreed that Christ was
referring to Gentiles, not Jews of the Dispersion, when He said,
“Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down
with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: but
the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into outer darkness.”
Finally, the fear—a very practical one—of antinomianism is met
by a presentation of Christ’s teaching as the New Law: the
Sermon on the Mount is a counterpart to Sinai, and the five Great
Discourses (p. 261 ff.) are, as it were, ‘‘ the five books” of His
“law of liberty.”

Thus complete reconciliation of the two parties of the James

oH, XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 515

and Paul tradition, once hardly even artificially held together by
Peter as a middle term, is now effected. That is much the most
probable explanation of the famous saying, “Thou art Peter, on
this rock I will build my Church” (cf. p. 258). How far the words
of this highly controverted saying as preserved in the First Gospel
were actually uttered by Christ, and, if so, with what exact
significance, it would be profitless to inquire. The form in which
we have it is the version as remembered, repeated, and in repeti-
tion doubtless not a little modified, by those who disapproved
alike of the undue conservatism of James and of Paul’s too liberal
attitude towards the Law, but were content to accept the via media
of Peter.1 At Antioch all could rally round the name of Peter.
He is the supreme Rabbi in whom resides the final interpretation
(the power “to bind and to loose’”’) of the New Law given to
the New Israel (‘‘ my (1.6. the Messiah’s) Church ”’) by Christ.
Extremists, of course, on both sides would repudiate the
compromise. They always do. They became the forbears on
the one side of Ebionites, and on the other of Antinomian
Docetae. But if Matthew represents the agreement of the
main body of the Church of Antioch, how long a period must be
allowed for the settlement to be reached? When Paul wrote
to the Philippians (c. 63) the Judaisers were actively, openly, and,
from his language, one might infer unscrupulously, attacking
him. And in the Church of Antioch the Jewish element was
much more powerful than at Rome. Would twenty years have
sufficed for the Church of Antioch to reach the degree of peace
and unanimity which the Gospel of Matthew implies? Most

1 IT owe to Prof. Burkitt a reference to Anecdota Oxoniensia (Relics of the
Palestinian Syriac Literature), 1896, pp. 85-87, for a homiletic exposition of
Mt. xvi. 18, which denies that the Rock was Peter. This whole Palestinian
Syriac literature was used in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which looked to
James as its founder, as against Peter, in whose chair sat the Patriarch of the
really much more important border See of Antioch. The claim of Rome to be
in a special sense the See of Peter is not found in the second century ; it is
always Peter and Paul. If, as is possible (cf. p. 490), the death of Peter in
Rome is a mistaken inference from 1 Clem. v., the claim of Rome to have any
connection at all with that Apostle must be subsequent to the date of writing
of Matthew.

516 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

probably it would—having in view the favouring circumstances
enumerated above. But it is a consideration we must bear in
mind in estimating the date of the Gospel.

ANTIOCH AND THE ANTI-CHRIST

That Matthew was written after a.p. 70 may be deduced
from an addition to the parable of the Marriage of the King’s
Son, ‘‘and the rest laid hold on his servants, and entreated
them shamefully, and killed them. But the King was wroth; and
he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned
their city” (Mt. xxii. 6-7). There is nothing at all about, either
the persecution of the messengers, or the King’s vengeance, in
the parallel parable of the Great Supper in Luke (xiv. 16 ff.).
Besides, the words “their city” do not fit into the rest of the story ;
for the invited guests would either be citizens of one or more of
the King’s own cities, or, if they were representatives of foreign
powers, would inhabit more than one city. But the insertion is
intelligible if it is regarded as an attempt to point the moral of
the parable by interpreting it as a prophecy by Christ of the
destruction of the city of Jerusalem, regarded as the judgment
of God—the King in the parable—and in particular as a punish-
ment for the persecution by the Jews of the Christian apostles
and missionaries, who are the messengers sent to them by Him
to invite them to the “‘ wedding feast’ of His Son the Messiah.
Such a modification of the parable (which Luke preserves in
what is clearly a more original form) would be very natural after
the Fall of Jerusalem, but not before. The considerations which
follow suggest that the Gospel was written some time after that
event.

It is impossible for us nowadays to realise the shock of a.p. 70
to a community in’ which Jewish and Gentile members alike
had been reared in the profoundest veneration of the im-
memorial sanctity of the Holy City and the Temple. True, it
was expected that before the Great Deliverance there would be

ou. XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 517

the Great Tribulation, in the course of which the “ Man of Sin,”
the Anti-Christ, would take his stand in the Temple ; and Christ
Himself, it was recorded, had prophesied a destruction of the
Temple as the immediate prelude to His own return. But the
stupendous fact in the situation was that Jerusalem and the
Temple had been destroyed and neither Anti-Christ nor Christ
had come. Wars and rumours of wars, world-wide catastrophes,
had taken place. Huge armies had tramped from the utmost
parts of the Roman world. Three Caesars had been set up and
three had perished in a single year. And the accumulation of
horror and desecration connected with the siege of Jerusalem had
seemed to match in actual fact the final “ tribulation” which
Apocalyptic expectation had foretold. These things had come
to pass—and still the Lord did not return. To such a crisis
different minds would react differently. To some it would
induce an intensification of Apocalyptic expectation and a more
fanatic conviction of the immediacy of the End. Others would
slowly awake from Apocalyptic dreams and see the necessity,
before it was too late, of collecting and preserving the surviving
records of the mighty past. In the Gospel of Matthew both
these tendencies are seen reflected.

That the Fall of Jerusalem did produce an intense revival
of Apocalyptic interest and a new output of Apocalyptic litera-
ture, both among Jews and Christians, there is some evidence.
For our present purpose the most important point to note is
that calculations of the exact date of the End, based on the
three and a half years of Daniel xii. 11-12, were actually pre-
occupying Christians about the year 70. Whatever other views
critics hold about the date and sources of Revelation, there is
practically unanimous agreement that Rev. xi. 1-2 was written
at that date, and that the author expected the End within three
and a half years of the Fall of the City. Now the prophecy of

1 Daniel gives the figure 1290, Rev. xi. 3-4 has 1260; this, the author ex-
plains, corresponds to 42 months (=34 years); he reckons 30 days to a month,
but does not add the “ intercalary month,” no doubt because he wrote since
the introduction of the Julian Calendar.

518 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT.1V_

which Rey. xi. 1-2 is part must have had a wide circulation, as it,
or something very like it, seems to have been known to Luke ;
for he adds (Lk. xxi. 24) the words, “‘ Jerusalem shall be trodden
under by the Gentiles,”’ which are not contained in the parallel in
Mark. So that we cannot assume that it was unknown at Antioch.

Since, then, Jerusalem fell on 4th September 70, the End of
the World would in wide circles be expected to take place early
in 74. But the year 74 closed and the End did not come. This
made a change in the situation. When Mark wrote (c. 65) it
seemed possible that the prophecies of the appearance of the Anti-
Christ and the Return of Christ within the lifetime of the first
generation might be fulfilled. But with every year after a.p. 75
the non-fulfilment of these prophecies became a more grievous
difficulty to the early Church. It is interesting to notice that
each of the three later Evangelists solved the problem in a
different way. John at Ephesus does so by a spiritual inter-
pretation which practically gets rid of the Apocalyptic idea ; the
Return of Christ is fulfilled (or for all immediate and practical
purposes fulfilled) by the coming of the Paraclete; while the
prophecy of Anti-Christ, instead of being referred to a single
half-human, half-demoniac monster, is interpreted as the spirit
of the false prophets who deny that Christ has come in the flesh
(1 John iv. 2-3): “ This is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof
ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.”
Luke partly solves the problem by getting rid of the Anti-Christ
prophecy altogether, interpreting the Abomination of Desolation
as a synonym for the Desolation of Jerusalem by the Roman
armies: the Return of Christ he still thinks near, but it is
postponed “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”’ (xxi. 24).
Matthew, in the Jewish atmosphere of Antioch, is more con-
servative ; he takes both the Anti-Christ and the Parousia in
their most literal sense, and he insists that both are overdue.
But, as we shall see shortly, he has his own solution of the
problem: he disconnects the Anti-Christ from any local con-
nection with the Temple.

OH. XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 519

We have seen that the last chapter of the Didache is, in
effect, a hortatory commentary on the Apocalyptic discourse in
Mt. xxiv. But what of the sentence (Did. xvi. 3), “and then
the World-deceiver (κοσμοπλανής) shall appear as a Son of
God; and shall work signs and wonders...” ? In the con-
text, and in the light of the fact that the rest of that context
is all dependent on Mt. xxiv., the “ World-deceiver ”’ can only
be an equivalent, intelligible to the plain man, of the enigmatic
“ Abomination of Desolation.” In fact, the author of the Didache
has taken the advice “‘let him that readeth understand ”’ (xxiv. 15)
—he has read, and thinks he has understood. This is evidence
that in Syria about a.p. 95 the Abomination was supposed to
mean the personal Anti-Christ; the older interpretation of
Daniel (that given in Mark) had either been revived or had
never been discarded.

Now the author of the Didache is, I feel sure, quite correct in
his interpretation of Matthew. To Matthew, as to Mark, the
βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως is, not the Fall of Jerusalem, but the
Anti-Christ. In the ordinary text Matthew’s alteration of Mark’s
masculine into the neuter participle (ἑστηκότα into ἑστός) im-
proves the grammar but does not necessarily imply a desire
to change the sense. I believe, however, that the true text of
Matthew is that preserved in Syr. 8 (supported by one cursive of
fam. 1424) which omits “ standing in the holy place.” Syr. 8,
representing the old text of Antioch, is an especially good
authority for the Antiochene Gospel of Matthew (cf. p. 135 ff.).
Against the genuineness of the reading ἑστὸς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ,
B 8 etc., is the absence of any article with τόπῳ ἁγίῳ. But such
an omission of the article, though unaccountable in a literary text,
would be quite natural in a note scratched in the margin? by
some one who had looked up (as advised to do in the text)
Daniel ix. 27 in the LXX (the English Bible follows the Hebrew,
which differs here from the Greek), where the words ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν

1 Tf 80, ἑστώς, Ὁ and Byz., is original, since it naturally reads as nominative
masculine, though in late Greek it may be neuter also.

520 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων occur, and had the parallel passage
in Mark in his mind. A marginal gloss, especially if also an
assimilation to the parallel in Mark, would be certain to slip
into the text. If the true reading is that of Syr. S., Matthew
has solved the problem of the non-appearance of the Anti-Christ
before the destruction of Jerusalem by the simple expedient of
omitting Mark’s veiled reference (ὅπου ov δεῖ) to the Temple.
The Anti-Christ expectation is thus entirely detached from any
local connection with Jerusalem, and the possibility is left open
of interpreting the Abomination prophecy in the light of the
Nero-redivivus myth,! which, as we shall see shortly, must for
geographical reasons have had a peculiar vitality in Antioch.
No Gospel makes so much as does Matthew of the expectation
that the visible Return of Christ will be within the lifetime of
those who saw and heard Him. It is often said that this is
merely the result of a conservative use of the earlier sources
which Matthew reproduces. But Matthew never hesitates to
omit from or alter Mark, if thereby he can avoid an apologetic
difficulty (p. 162), and he often does this to get rid of quite
trifling difficulties ; much more, then, would he have toned down
the passages implying an immediate Parousia if he had desired.
But as a matter of fact he has done the exact opposite. He adds
a striking passage, “‘ Ye shall not have gone through the cities of
Israel, till the Son of Man be come” (Mt. x. 23), which is not
in Mark at all. He twice repeats the saying (conflated from
Mark and Q), ‘“‘ Watch, for ye know not the day nor the hour.”
In reproducing Mark he often enhances the immediacy implied.
Thus Mark writes, “There be some of them which stand by
which shall not taste of death till they see the Kingdom of God
come with power” (ix. 1). Luke avoids the difficulty involved
in this saying by omitting the last three words, thus interpreting
the “Kingdom of God” as the Church; but, as if to preclude any

1 On the development of the Anti-Christ idea, and the prevalence in
Christian circles of an identification of Nero with Anti-Christ, see R. H.
Charles, op. cit. ii. pp. 76-87.

cH. XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 521

such interpretation, Matthew substitutes “till they see the Son
of Man coming in his kingdom.” Again, in two other passages
(Mt. xxiv. 29 and Mt. xxvi. 64) he adds words of immediacy
(εὐθέως and ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι) to the text of Mark.}

Again, quite apart from this underlining of passages which
speak of the immediacy of the Parousia, Matthew shows his
interest in Apocalyptic in other ways. He frequently makes
minor alterations in the form of any sayings of Christ of an
Apocalyptic character in his sources which bring them more
closely into conformity with the conventional model. In the
Appendix to the Oxford Studies I argued that Q, Mark, and
Matthew show an ascending scale in the tendency to emphasise
and conventionalise our Lord’s Apocalyptic teaching. The
cogency of the argument has been questioned so far as it con-
cerns Q, on the ground that, as we do not possess the original
text of Q, we cannot say what it did not contain. But at least
it holds good in the series, Lk. xii. 9= Mt. x. 33 (representing Q),
Mk. viii. 38, and its parallel Mt. xvi. 27. The saying in Q contains
the purely ethical warning, ‘‘ Whosoever denies me before men,
him will I deny”; Mark’s “Whosoever shall be ashamed of me,
etc.,” has the same ethical point, reinforced by an Apocalyptic
statement, “‘ when he cometh in the glory of his Father with
the holy angels.” In Matthew the ethical point is omitted, but
the Apocalyptic statement is further elaborated. But, whatever
may be true of Q, it cannot be denied that as between Mark and
Matthew there is a heightening of Apocalyptic interest. Thus
in Mt. xxiv. 29-31=Mk. xii. 25-27 we find the, addition by
Matthew of various details, like the trumpet, derived from the
conventional scenery of Jewish eschatology. Again, Matthew
five times uses the phrase συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος, “ the end of the
world,” which does not occur elsewhere in the Gospels; he six
times speaks of “‘ weeping and gnashing of teeth,” a phrase which

1 Burkitt (J.7.S9. xii. p. 460) argues that, read in the context, Matthew’s
εὐθέως does not imply an earlier date than Mark’s “ἴῃ those days.” Never-
theless that Matthew, having taken the trouble to alter Mark at all, should use
the word “ immediately ”’ is significant.

522 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

occurs only once in Luke and nowhere else in the New Testament.
Nor is it without significance that in chapter xiii. he refrains from
pointing the moral of the parables of the Mustard Seed, Leaven,
Hid Treasure, and Pearl of Great Price, to all of which it is
difficult to give an Apocalyptic interpretation, but goes out of
his way to add an explanation in terms of catastrophic eschat-
ology to the parables of the Tares and the Drag Net.

The enhancement of Apocalyptic interest in Matthew is the
more remarkable since in other Christian documents—whether
earlier than Matthew, like the later Epistles of Paul, or later,
like the Fourth Gospel—the delay in the Second Coming was
obviously causing less and less emphasis to be laid on this par-
ticular element in early Christian belief. Even in the Apocalyptic
chapter of Mark the emphasis is on “‘ the end is not yet.” Mark,
like Paul in 2 Thessalonians, urges Christians not to mistake
present or recent tribulations for the immediate prelude of the
Second Coming. The real prelude will be the appearance of Anti-
Christ, and even after his appearance there will still be an interval.
With Matthew it is otherwise. Urgency is the note all through
his Gospel. But his Apocalyptic is subservient to a moral
purpose. For him “ Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at
hand,” sums up the teaching of John, of our Lord Himself, and of
the Twelve—it is the essence of the Christian message. ‘“‘ Not
every man that sayeth unto me, Lord, Lord ; but he that doeth
the will” : the Gospel of Matthew is a call for moral reformation
on the basis of the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, in view of
the immediacy of the Great Assize—between which and the date
of writing perhaps not more than four short years remained.
Indeed, from the occurrence of phrases like “‘ There be some of
those standing here who shall not taste of death...” it is
often argued that the Gospel must have been written while some
of the Apostles were still alive. No doubt that was the meaning
given to the words when first written. But once written, as the
whole history of the “ interpretation of prophecy ” shows, a new
meaning would inevitably be read into them when the old one

OH. XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 523

manifestly would no longer work. And in this case the obvious
re-interpretation would be that the prophecy meant that, not the
Apostles, but some persons of the generation who were actually
alive when Christ spoke would survive till the Parousia. This
would extend the date, if necessary, to the end of the century.
All then that we can say is that Matthew must have been
written during a period of intense Apocalyptic expectation.

This fervour of expectation. has, I suggest, a geographical
explanation. Antioch was the eastern gate of the Roman Empire,
and, here more than elsewhere, the popular mind was constantly
perturbed by rumours that Nero, at the head of the Parthian
hosts, was marching against Rome. The belief that Nero had not
really died but was hidden in Parthia awaiting his revenge, or,
as the myth developed, that he had died but would rise again,
led to the rise of false Neros across the Euphrates. Three of
these pretenders, in 69, in 80, and in 88, are known to history.
The fact of their emergence is strong evidence of the persistence
and widespread character of the belief. Nero was not unpopular
with the multitude in the provinces; but the Christians, and for
good reason, regarded him as the incarnation of the hostility
of Satan to the Church of God. Very soon (p. 520 n.) they com-
bined the popular Nero-redivivus myth with that conception of
the Anti-Christ which they had derived from Jewish Apocalyptic.
This fusion is already effected in the Apocalypse, and it is there
connected with invasions of the Roman Empire from the Euphrates.
Antioch, which was far more Jewish than Asia, and which would
be first to feel the brunt if the Euphrates line was broken, would
certainly be affected by such fears at an earlier date.

Date or WRITING

The use of Matthew in the Didache, with the probability that
copies of it had reached Ephesus within the lifetime of John the
Elder, and that it was also known to the author of Revelation—
who, according to both Irenaeus and modern critics, wrote

524 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

towards the end of the reign of Domitian, who died a.p. 96—
makes it difficult to assign to the Gospel a date much later than
the year 85. But the internal evidence—so far as the Apoca-
lyptic atmosphere is concerned—would be consistent with any
date between that and 75. If we wish a nearer approximation
we must interrogate another aspect of the internal evidence.

I have already argued (p. 502 f.) that the fact that hardly any
narrative bearing the hall-mark of authenticity seems to have
reached Matthew, apart from what he derived from his written
sources, rules out a Palestinian origin for the Gospel. But even
in Antioch one would have supposed that some independent
traditions, obviously genuine, would have been current for a
good many years. The only explanation I can suggest of the
absence of such from Matthew is that the written Gospel, Mark,
had been in use long enough, not only to become the starting-
point of the development of new tradition of a Haggadic origin,
but by its superior value and prestige to dry up the stream of
genuine independent tradition. Twenty years at least seem to
me required for this result to have been reached. Again, twenty
years seemed (p. 515 f.) a fair time to allow for that reconciliation
of parties which the Gospel appears to imply. On the other hand,
if we extend the period beyond this, with every decade Mark’s
authority would be growing, and it becomes increasingly more
difficult to explain the liberties which, at times, Matthew takes
with the text. When Matthew wrote, Mark was authoritative, but
so far from being Scripture, was, as yet, hardly quite a classic.

Now Mark was probably written about 65, and there is no
reason why a copy may not have been sent to Antioch almost
at once by the Church of Rome. The year 85, we have seen, is
the latest date which can, without strain, be reconciled with
the external evidence for the existence of Matthew. It is also
the earliest date with which the internal evidence naturally
accords. Thus we may assign the Gospel to 4.p. 85, not as a
date mathematically demonstrated, but as one which satisfies
all the evidence and conflicts with none.

OH. XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 525

ACCEPTANCE BY RomME

Of the reception of Matthew at Ephesus we have the con-
temporary evidence of John the Elder. It may have been a
little, but not much later, that the first copy of Matthew reached
Rome ; but it does not follow that it was at once accepted there.
Matthew challenged comparison, not only with the old local
Gospel of Mark, but with Luke, which, as we shall see in the next
chapter, was already established there—the more so because, while
no claim of Apostolic authorship was put forward for Mark and
Luke, such a claim was by this time (as the attitude of the Elder
implies) being made for Matthew. If, therefore, Matthew was
accepted at all, it could only be as an authority swperior to Mark
and Luke. But Matthew conflicts with Luke at several points,
most conspicuously in the matter of the Genealogy of our Lord
and—if we are inclined to regard the omission of Lk. i. 34 in ὃ
to be original (cf. p. 267)—in its affirmation of a Virgin Birth.
Unless, then, the new arrival could substantiate its claim to
Apostolic, and therefore to superior, authority, it must have been
regarded as a book inaccurate on important points, and only
the more to be suspected if without warrant it was ascribed to
an Apostle.

There exists in Syriac a treatise, wrongly ascribed to Eusebius,
entitled “ As to the Star: Showing how and by what Means the
Magi knew the Star, and that Joseph did not take Mary as his
Wife.” 1 This describes a conference at Rome on the subject of
its title, which is elaborately dated by four separate synchronisms
as occurring during the episcopate of Xystus in a.pD. 119. The
contents of the document have no claim to be considered
historical, but Harnack and others think it probable that the
date at least is authentic. I hazard the conjecture that it is the
date of a conference at which the Roman Church accepted the

1 First published by W. Wright, Journal of Sacred Lit., Oct. 1866. Harnack
translates and discusses the relevant passage in Date of the Acts and Synoptics,
E.T. p. 134 (Williams & Norgate, 1911).

526 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

First Gospel as Apostolic on the testimony of representatives of
the Church of Antioch. The martyrdom of Ignatius, Bishop of
Antioch, in the Coliseum was then an event of recent memory.
His letter to the Roman Church, which became, as Lightfoot
shows, a kind of martyr’s handbook, had attracted great atten-
tion; his enthusiastic admiration of the Roman Church, his
emphasis on ecclesiastical discipline, based on obedience to the
Bishop, as a safeguard against heresy, would have specially
commended the Church of Antioch and its traditions to the con-
sideration of the authorities of Rome. Once a favourable hearing
was secured for the tradition of Apostolic authorship, the Gospel
on its merits would seem worthy of an Apostle. At any rate, by
the time of Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Matthew, alongside that
of Mark and Luke, is firmly established as one of the accepted
Gospels of the Roman Church. If such a conference between
Rome and Antioch really did take place, Antioch would take as
well as give, and the claims of Luke could not be overlooked.
Basilides, the great Gnostic, and Cerdo, the master of Marcion,
both came from Antioch; and both seem to have known
and valued Luke. From this Prof. Bacon! infers that Luke
was originally an Antiochene work; it is rather, I would
suggest, evidence that, before their time, c. a.D. 130, Luke
had been accepted as authoritative by Antioch—very possibly
on the guarantee of Rome at the same conference at which
Rome accepted. Matthew as Apostolic on the guarantee of
Antioch.

If our conjecture is correct, four stages can be traced in the
evolution of the Gospel Canon at Rome—originally Mark alone ;
by a.p. 90 Mark and Luke ; after a.p. 119 the three Synoptics?;
from about Α.Ὁ. 170 the Four. Curiously enough we can also
trace four stages in the growth of the Roman Corpus Paulinum—
the nucleus (Rom., 1 Cor., Eph., perhaps Phil.) known already

1 Expositor, Oct. 1920, p. 291.
2 Tf, as is possible (cf. p. 349), the Longer Ending of Mark is an attempt
to conflate the Matthaean and Lucan endings, it must date from this period.

OH. XVII ORIGIN OF MARK AND MATTHEW 527

to Clement, a.p. 961; the Ten (Marcion’s Canon), c. 1402; the
Thirteen (adding I. and II. Tim., Tit.) before a.p. 200 (Muratorian
Canon); the Fourteen, including Hebrews, c. a.p. 350. But
Hebrews was in the Alexandrian Corpus Paulinum at least as
early as A.D. 160, for the Alexandrian Clement quotes a “blessed
elder” as discussing (on the assumption, be it noted, that it is
indubitably by Paul) why Paul did not prefix his name. The
hesitations on the ground of its non-Pauline style expressed by
Clem. Alex. and Origen are those of the scholar criticising an old
and accepted tradition. Similarly, as early as Ignatius, Antioch
seems to have accepted the Pastorals.4 Thus, alike in the matter
of Gospels and Epistles, Rome was slower than other Churches
to accept a claim to Apostolic origin, and we have one more
illustration of the importance of studying the history of the
books of the New Testament in the great Churches separately.

ADDITIONAL NOTE
The Date of 1 Clement

The Epistle of the Roman Church to the Corinthian, known as
1 Clement, rapidly gained enormous prestige in the Hast—doubtless
because its emphasis on obedience to ecclesiastical rulers deriving
their powers by succession from the Apostles (xxxvii.—xli.) seemed to
the Church authorities a thing on which emphasis was much needed.
Most probably it is of this letter of the Roman Church that Ignatius
is thinking in his extravagant praises of that Church, in particular

1 The author of Acts, a Roman document (see p.-531 ff.), can hardly have
read Galatians and 2 Corinthians. For an argument that Clement of Rome
was ignorant of 2 Corinthians cf. J. H. Kennedy, The Second and Third Letters
of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p. 148 ff. (Methuen, 1900.)

2 Marcion freely excised passages he disliked, and I cannot believe he would
have rejected the Pastorals altogether, if they had been accepted at Rome,
when a very little ‘‘ Bowdlerising ” would have sufficed. Also at a still later
date Tatian felt he could reject the epistles to Timothy.

3 Eus. H.H. vi. 14.

4 Besides some almost certain verbal echoes, there is the fact that Ignatius
tells the Ephesians (xii. 2) that Paul mentions them “in every letter.’ Asa
matter of fact he mentions them twice in 1 Corinthians, and three times in the
Pastorals ; so, if the Pastorals are ruled out, his statement becomes meaningless.

528 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. 1V

when he speaks of the Romans as “the instructors of others” (Rom.
iii. 1); to Ignatius exhortation to ecclesiastical discipline was the
supreme need of the time. Polycarp, again, must have known
1 Clement by heart. A large literature grew up round the name of
Clement, who was regarded as the direct disciple of Peter. The early
date of the nucleus of this literature, combined with the definite
attribution of the letter to Clement by Irenaeus and Dionysius of
Corinth, c. A.D. 170 (Hus. H.#. iv. 23, 9), affords good evidence that
Clement was the writer of the Epistle. Prof. Merrill (op. cit. ch. ix.)
maintains that his episcopate, and indeed his existence, is an infer-
ence (made by Hegesippus) from the mention in Hermas of a certain
“secretary Clement.” But the Professor accepts the statement of
the Muratorian Canon that Hermas was written by a brother of
Pius during his episcopate; and Hegesippus came to Rome when
Anicetus, the immediate successor of Pius, was Pope. How then,
when Hermas was known in Rome to be by the late Pope’s brother,
could Hegesippus infer that a contemporary of his was third from the
Apostles? The “‘sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances”
(Clem. i. 1) which delayed the writing of the letter, taken in
connection with the prayer for the release of Christian prisoners
(ix. 4), is most naturally referred to Domitian’s persecution A.D. 96
—on which see footnote, p. 474. Eusebius dates the death of
Clement a.p. 100.

Personally, in view of the arguments of Salmon (in Dict. Christ.
Biogr.) and Bigg (Origins of Christianity, ch. viii.), I incline to date
Hermas c. 100, and to regard the statement in the Muratorian
Canon (by Hippolytus, cf. Lightfoot, Clement, ii. p. 407 ff.) as a by-
product of anti-Montanist polemic. For the sake of the principle,
“the prophets are complete in number,’’ Hermas must be dis-
paraged; and Hippolytus, as we can see from his biographical
remarks on Pope Callistus, was one who as a controversialist prized
effectiveness above accuracy. Clement would then be contemporary
with Hermas and presiding Elder of the Church. I am attracted by
Merrill’s interesting suggestion (op. cit. p. 305) that Hegesippus was
the first to compile a formal list of Roman bishops; if so, as he
came to Rome before a.p. 166, it is likely that, at least as far back
as Clement, his list is correct.

XVIII
LUKE AND ACTS
SYNOPSIS

THe Roman ORIGIN or Acts

Acts is not so much a history of the Apostolic Age as of the march
of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome.

Probably known to Clement of Rome a.p. 96.

Objections to the theory that connects Lucan writings with
Antioch.

If Theophilus was a Roman noble the Gospel may have been
written and addressed to him when Governor of some province.
Possibly, therefore, written in Corinth, the capital of Achaea. In
that case it would be brought to Rome by the author himself.

Christianity and the Imperial House in Rome, a.p. ὁ. 90. Acts
is “ the first of the Apologies,” z.e. of defences of Christianity addressed
to the educated Roman world.

DatEe oF THE GOSPEL
Not later than a.p. 85, more likely about a.p. 80.

AUTHORSHIP

This important for the indirect light which it throws on the local
origin of sources of the Gospels. Authorship of Third Gospel bound
up with that of Acts. The Tiibingen view of Acts made untenable
by subsequent research and discussion. The linguistic, archaeo-
logical evidence, and that from “ undesigned coincidence,” cannot
even be summarised here; but considerations, some of them new,
are offered, bearing upon the larger issues involved in the question
of the Lucan authorship.

I. Twofold error in the Tiibingen view. (a) Their formula,
“thesis, antithesis, and synthesis,” involves an a priori dogmatic in-
terpretation of history; but history is an empiric science. (6) The

529 2M

ὅ80 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

actual evidence shows that Peter occupied a middle position between
James and Paul—that is, the middle position was the starting-point,
not the result, of the divergence. This shown by a consideration of
the Cornelius incident and the dispute at Antioch.

11. The evidence of the “we sections” must be considered in
connection with (a) the literary methods of the author, (5) the fact
that they break off at Philippi, and recommence at this same city.

III. The antinomian language of Paul was balanced by occasional
acts of am extremely conciliatory character. Paul’s relation to the
“ Pillar” Apostles and the Apostolic Decree of Acts xv. The Acts
is firstly, “ the case for the Christian Church,” secondly, an Apologia
pro vita Pauli; as such it conforms in regard to both emphasis and
omission to the traditions of ancient biography.

IV. Reply to the objection that the author of Acts could not
be Luke because he shows no appreciation of the specifically Pauline
theology. (a) There is no evidence, or even probability, that Luke
was converted by Paul or had much to do with him until his own
religious outlook was fully matured. (b) Only one brought up
a Pharisee could really fathom the inner meaning of Paul’s theology,
and Luke was a Gentile.

V. The Roman origin of Acts opens up a new possibility in
regard to the debated question of the relation of Luke and Josephus.

VI. The Preface to the Gospel implies an intention to improve
upon the work of Mark. Since Mark and Luke were read together
at Rome, the names of both authors must have been used in order
to distinguish the two books. Hence (against H. J. Cadbury) the
name Luke could not have been arrived at as the result of con-
jecture in the second century as to the authorship of a previously
anonymous work.

VII. It is a principle of historical criticism, in estimating the
value of evidence, to make allowance for any possible bias of the
witness. In the second century the bias was very strongly in the
direction of attributing Apostolic authorship to documents accepted
into the Canon. The burden, then, of proof lies with those who
would assert the traditional authorship of Matthew and John, but
on those who would deny it in the case of Mark and Luke.

CHAPTER XVIII
LUKE AND ACTS

Tue Roman OricGiIn oF Acts

EVERYTHING points to Rome as the Church for which the
Acts was written. Considered as a history of the foundation of
Christianity, Acts is entirely out of proportion. Not a word is
said of Alexandria, while Antioch, the first centre of the Gentile
mission and always the capital of Eastern Christianity, drops
out of sight so soon as Paul has begun his great movement of
expansion north and west. But the Acts is not intended to be
a history of the first thirty years of Christianity. It is rather the
story of how that religion travelled from Jerusalem, the capital
of Jewry, to Rome, the capital of the world. Its aim is to trace
the transition of Christianity from a sect of Judaism into a world
religion. The points which the author most emphasises are the
crucial stages in this development. The Gospel is preached first
to a Eunuch, a Jew by blood, but one who might not be a member
of the Jewish congregation ; then to the half-Israelitish Samaritans ;
then to Cornelius, a Gentile proselyte of the synagogue ; lastly to
the Gentile world at large ; and this spiritual expansion, we are
led to feel, has reached its consummation when, with the two
years’ preaching of Paul, the Church has been securely, and by
apostolic authority, planted in the capital of the world. Lastly,
the book ends with the announcement that the Jewish world has
finally rejected Christ, with the unuttered implication that the

capital of Christianity has been transferred from Jerusalem to
531

532 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

Rome. In a word, the title of the Acts might well have been
“ The Road to Rome.”

This inference from internal evidence should be taken in
connection with the probability that the Acts was known to
the writer of the letter of the Roman to the Corinthian Church,
c. A.D. 96, ascribed to Clement. His phrase “ more glad to give
than to receive” (Clem. 11. 1) seems to allude to the saying of
Christ recorded Acts xx. 35 but not elsewhere. Again, Acts and
Clement agree in conflating 1 Sam. xiii. 14 with Ps. lxxxviii. 21
(Clem. xviii. 1; cf. Acts xii. 22). Hither, then, Clement quotes
Acts or both draw on the same collection of Messianic proof texts.
Tf the latter, it must have been a collection used in Rome at this
date. More significant is his allusion to Peter and Paul. Of
Paul, Clement (v. 6-7) says, “seven times in bonds, hurried from
place to place, stoned, a preacher in both the Hast and the
West . . . having taught the whole world righteousness and
reached the farthest limits of the West, and having borne testi-
mony before the governors . . .” The concluding words depend
for their rhetorical effect on the implication that the Apostle
thus fulfilled the prophecy of our Lord: “ Before governors and.
kings shall ye stand for my sake for a testimony unto them”
(Mk. xii. 9). It adds still more point to the whole passage if
what goes before is regarded as being a similar allusion to the
words, “‘ Ye shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea
and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth’’ (Acts
i. 8), which states the “programme” of the Acts. True, only four
imprisonments—at Philippi, Jerusalem, Caesarea and Rome—
are expressly mentioned in Acts, but the early tradition em-
bodied in the Latin (Marcionite) Prologues added one more in
Ephesus ; and there may have been two periods of imprisonment in
Rome. But Clement’s arithmetic must not be pressed; “seven” is
a sacred number into conformity with which Jews and Christians
were always trying to squeeze facts. At any rate Clement’s de-
scription of Paul’s Jabours and sufferings is very much nearer to
the story in Acts than it is to Paul’s own summary in 2 Cor. xi. 24 ff.

CH, ΧΥ͂ΠΙ LUKE AND ACTS 533

There is another feature about this passage. Clement (v. 3-5)
is quite obviously trying to suggest a parallelism between the
sufferings of “ the two good Apostles,” Peter and Paul. Peter is
mentioned first ; but all Clement has to say about him is that he
“endured not one nor two but many labours, and having thus
borne testimony 1 went to his appointed place of glory.” Why
has Clement definite details about Paul’s sufferings but only
vague generalities about those of Peter? This would be readily
explained if Clement knew Acts—which mentions two imprison-
ments of Peter, but nothing comparable to the long list of suffer-
ings endured and dangers overcome which it records of Paul—
but knew nothing definite about Peter beyond what he found in
Acts, except the bare fact (and possibly the time and place) of
his death.

Eusebius 2 says that Luke was of Antiochene lineage, and the
Monarchian Prologue agrees (Syrus natione). This may be an
inference from the occurrence of a “ we section” in the Western
text in Acts xi. 28. But, if so, that only means that the early
evidence for the Western reading is much increased; and as the
reading is very likely correct, the inference may be so too. But
no Church writer and no MS. “subscription ” says that Luke wrote
at Antioch; and the fact that the connection of Peter with
Antioch—the proudest boast of that Church—is completely
ignored is fatal to the theory of some modern scholars that the
book was written in and for that Church.?

But though the Acts is a sequel to the Gospel, it does not
necessarily follow that they were written in the same place, or

1 The οὕτω before μαρτυρήσας implies that the verb refers to the labours—
not to martyrdom in the strict sense.

2 τὸ μὲν γένος ὧν τῶν dm’ ᾿Αντιοχείας (H.E. iii. 4).

3 A few cursives (incl. 124, 346) and some MSS. of the Peshitta state that
Luke wrote in Alexandria. This is perhaps an inference from the statement
in the Apostolic Constitutions that the second bishop of that Church was con-
secrated by “ Luke, who was also an evangelist.” But this is a document of
Syrian origin and, as there is no at all early Egyptian tradition that connected
Luke with Alexandria, it merely constitutes negative evidence that Syrian
tradition did not connect the writing of the Gospel with Antioch.

534 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

that when Luke wrote the Gospel he already anticipated a sequel.
Linguistic considerations, pointed out by Hawkins,! and the dis-
crepancy (assuming the B text to be correct) between the Gospel
and Acts in regard to the day of the Ascension, would favour
an interval of time between the two works ; and this may have
corresponded to a change of residence. And there are four
considerations — though none of them is at sll conclusive - -
which may be urged in support of the view that the Gospel was
written elsewhere than Rome. (1) The possibility—it is no
more (p. 175 ff.)—that Luke had only a mutilated copy of Mark.
(2) The later Latin tradition, found in the Monarchian Prologue
and accepted by Jerome (though Jerome assigns Acts to Rome),
places the writing of the Gospel in Achaea.? In view of this it is
unsafe to press the language of Irenaeus (cf. p. 488) as evidence for
a Roman tradition, c. 170, that Luke wrote in that city: the Roman
Church has never been in the habit of surrendering claims once
made. (3) There is also, for what it is worth, the tradition con-
necting Luke with Boeotia (Thebes). The tomb shown there as his
must have existed a sufficient number of years to make its legend
respectable before the removal of his bones by Constantine to
his new capital. (4) The absence of reminiscences of the Gospel
in 1 Clement would be explained if its adoption at Rome was
comparatively recent, so that its phraseology had not yet had
time to become part of the texture of Clement’s mind. The
name Theophilus in the Lucan Prefaces looks like a prudential
pseudonym for some Roman of position—xpdticre might
be translated “your Excellence”; and if Luke had a
special connection with some personage who, after a provincial

' Hor. Syn.* p. 177 ff.

2 This may be merely an inference from the fact that “ the brother whose
praise is in the Gospel ” (2 Cor. viii. 18), often identified with Luke, is mentioned
in an epistle addressed to Corinth and “the saints which are in the whole of
Achaea” (2 Cor. i. 1). Luke’s connection with Achaea is assumed in an address
by Gregory Nazianzen, Or. xxxiii. 11, delivered in Constantinople, so that the
belief was current in the East also. Jerome’s phrase (Pref. to Commentary on

Matthew) “‘in the parts of Achaea and Boeotia’”’ is a rather clumsy conflation of
two traditions ; actually Boeotia was a part of the Roman province ‘‘ Achaea,”

OH, XVIII LUKE AND ACTS 535

governorship (perhaps of Achaea, resident at Corinth), subse-
quently returned to Rome, all the conditions would be satisfied.
But in that case a copy of the Gospel would have been brought
to Rome by Luke himself so soon after it was written that, from
the point of view of the history of its circulation in the Church at
large, it may practically be reckoned as a second Roman Gospel.

The theory that the Lucan writings were primarily written
to present the case for Christianity to certain members of the
Roman aristocracy is borne out by a consideration of the internal
circumstances of the Church in Rome during the latter part of
the first century 4.D. Domitian was assassinated in September
A.D. 96. Hight months before he had scandalised Rome by
putting to death T. Flavius Clemens, his own first cousin, the
husband of the only daughter of his only sister. Domitian himself
was childless, but Clemens and his wife had two sons. These, by
the express order of the Emperor, had been named Domitian and
Vespasian respectively, after himself and his father, the founder
of the dynasty. This, of course, constituted a public avowal of
the Emperor’s intention that one or other of these boys should
ultimately succeed to the throne. In the year a.p. 95 Domitian
had associated Flavius Clemens with himself as joint Consul,
another mark of the highest honour. But secretly Domitilla,
the wife of Flavius Clemens, was, if not actually a baptized
member, at any rate an adherent, of the Church ; and Clemens
himself would seem to have been δὖ least an inquirer. The
evidence, archaeological and historical, for this remarkable fact
is set out at length by Lightfoot,1 and more recent excavations
at Rome suggest that at this particular date members of more
than one aristocratic family were interesting themselves in
Christianity. This is not quite so surprising as may appear.
Juvenal complains of the “ Orontes pouring into the Tiber "2;
and not infrequently in Roman history did some oriental religion,
in a more or less subterranean way, become for a time the vogue

4 Clement, vol. i. p. 29 ff.
2 «Tam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes”’ (iii. 62).

536 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

in the highest society at Rome. About this date Christianity
for a few short years seems to have had its turn—perhaps as
a result of the general reaction against the spirit of Nero, and
the effort of the Court to promote moral reformation which
characterised the reign of Vespasian.

Curiously enough, however, it never seems to have occurred

‘to Church historians to ask what is likely to have been the
psychological effect, upon a community situated as was the
Christian Church of Rome in the first century, of the adhesion
to their body of the heir to the throne of Caesar—and that at a
moment when the reigning Caesar was, not only master of the
world, but was claiming and receiving the title Dominus Deus.
Had Domitian died a year before he did, it might have been, not
Constantine, but Flavius Clemens, whose name would have gone
down to history as the first Christian Emperor. How different
in that case might have been the fate both of the Empire and the
Church ? For the Church it was perhaps well that its capture
of the Palace was postponed from the first century to the fourth.
The conversion of Constantine and the state patronage of
Christianity which followed were not an unmixed blessing for a
Church which had grown to maturity ; to the infant Church they
might have been fatal. But even in the time of Constantine
no one foresaw these dangers; while in the first century the
accession of a Christian Emperor would have been regarded by
Christians not a few as almost the equivalent of the inauguration
of the kingdom of God on earth.

A man in the position of Flavius Clemens could only have
been led very gradually, step by step, to contemplate such a
complete abandonment of national traditions and intellectual
and social prejudice as, at that date, would have been involved
in accepting Christianity. It would have been easier in Victorian
England for Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, to become an
avowed disciple of General Booth than for Flavius Clemens
inder Domitian to be even a secret sympathiser with the Christian
Church. Domitilla, his wife, was sent into exile after her

oH, XVIII LUKE AND ACTS 537

husband’s execution, and the Church has always reckoned her as
a “confessor”’; but Clemens himself, though actually put to
death on a religious charge, was not reckoned asa martyr. From
this we may safely infer that the husband, at least, had never
been actually baptized, nor in any way publicly avowed his
adhesion to Christianity. What was noted about him, say
secular historians, was a marked abstention from the public
duties expected of a man in his position. This abstention is
attributed by Suetonius to laziness; more probably it was due
to the fact that public life at Rome necessarily involved partici-
pation in pagan sacrifices and amusements like gladiatorial
shows, in which any one who was at all attracted towards
Christianity would have found it more and more difficult con-
scientiously to take part.

But we are not here concerned with the views or feelings of
Clemens himself. What we have to consider is the probable
effect on Christians at Rome of the fact that the wife of the heir
to the throne was a member of their despised community, and of
the hope that her husband might soon become one. When Paul
wrote to the Corinthians, ‘not many mighty, not many noble ”’
were members of their calling ; and the letters which he writes,
though to our taste vigorous and effective in style, would not
altogether pass muster according to the conventional rules of
writing on which at that period so much stress was laid in
educated circles. Still less would the Gospel of Mark—the only
account which the Roman Church possessed of the life of Christ—
the Greek style of which is, next to Revelation, easily the worst in
the New Testament. Once Christianity began to reach members
of the high aristocracy, there would arise a new and insistent
demand for a Life of Christ which would not only jar less on
the literary taste of educated circles, but would also make it
clearer than does Mark that Christ was, and knew Himself to be,
no mere Jewish Messiah, but a World-saviour, the founder of a
world-religion, The Third Gospel is an attempt, and an extra-
ordinarily successful one, to meet this demand.

538 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

Again, to the Roman nobility the Church would appear to be
a society of peculiarly sordid origin. The Roman despised the
Jew, and he despised everything new-fangled. Christianity had
the reputation of being both Jewish and new-fangled. Worse
than that, Nero had been able to make scapegoats of the Christians
precisely because there existed a popular belief that they were a
society of secret criminals, who, even if not actually responsible
for the burning of Rome, were at any rate quite capable of desiring
or attempting such an exploit. Lastly, Nero’s action had created
a precedent, or at least established a presumption, associating
Christianity and crime; and a Roman noble, let alone one like
Flavius Clemens who was soon to be responsible for the supreme
administration of the Empire and its laws, had a great respect
for law and precedent. The Acts tells the story of the beginnings
of the Church in a way which unobtrusively presents the answer
to these objections. It shows that Christianity, though it no
doubt began in Palestine, is not really a Jewish but a universal
religion ; nor can it be derided as “ new-fangled.” Though in one
sense recent, it is the fulfilment of an ancient purpose of the God
of the whole earth—a purpose adumbrated by an age-long series
of prophecies. Precisely because it is essentially a universal
religion, the Jews—who must know best what their own religion
is—have rejected Christ, have persecuted His Apostles, and have
opposed His religion at every stage. Peter had difficulties with
Jewish Christians; Paul was bitterly persecuted by Jews; simply
because those two Apostles had always by word and deed showed
that they regarded Christianity, not as a Jewish, but as a world-
religion. Thus Christianity is neither Jewish nor new-fangled—
indeed, seen in its relation to prophecy, it is of immemoria’
antiquity. Nor, again, is it anti-Roman or illegal. Christ was
accused before Pilate of “ forbidding to give tribute to Caesar
and saying that he is himself a King ” (Lk. xxii. 2), The Roman
Procurator examines the case and three times declares him
guiltless. Again and again Paul, brought before Roman magis-
trates and accused by the malice of the Jews (Acts xvii. 7)

OH. XVII LUKE AND ACTS 539

of fomenting sedition, has been declared guiltless in Roman
law. .

It requires very little historical imagination to see that the
Gospel of Luke and the Acts are precisely the kind of literature
which would be needed by the Church in Rome if it was to
make further headway in the circle in which Clemens and
Domitilla were the leading figures. Indeed, it is not impossible
that Theophilus was the secret name by which Flavius Clemens
was known in the Roman Church. Theophilus (=devoted to
God) would be a most appropriately chosen name. It has a
more complimentary sound than θεοσεβής or “ proselyte” ; it
just falls short of definitely asserting quite as much, and at the
same time, being in actual use as a proper name, it had the
advantage of being something of adisguise; and thetitle κράτιστε,
“Your Excellence,” implies that the person addressed was one
of high position. Whether, however, “ Theophilus ” was Clemens
himself, or some other member of the high aristocracy, the Acts
is really the first of the Apologies. It is a forerunner of that series
of “Defences of Christianity,” addressed to reigning emperors
and members of the Imperial House, which constitutes the larger
part of the surviving Christian literature of the second century.
On this view its ending, which otherwise seems so flat and point-
less, is full of meaning. It is in a spirit of justifiable exultancy
that its author leads up to the final words of Paul—which, now
that the heir apparent was an inquirer, would seem prophecy
fulfilled—“ Behold, we go to the Gentiles, they will hear.” And
the calm confidence of the last two verses reflects the high hopes
of what will happen under a Christian Caesar, as Luke records
how, even under Nero, it had been possible for two years at
Rome to proclaim Christianity μετὰ πάσης παρρησίας ἀκωλύτως,
“with absolute freedom and without restraint.”’1 Thus read,
the end of Acts is a real climax.

1 Tt is not possible to render in English the strong rolling rhythm of the

Greek. A Greek tragedy ends thus with words of “ good omen”’ on a note of
calm,

ὅ40 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

DaTE OF THE GOSPEL

The date of the Gospel is determined as not being earlier than
A.D. 70 by the alterations which Luke makes in the prophecy of
the Abomination of Desolation. And here it is important to
think clearly. Harnack and others have urged that there is
nothing about the Fall of Jerusalem in Luke xxi. 20 ff. (or in
xix. 41 ff.) which could not have been written before a.p. 70.
Quite true; but the point to notice is that Luke, who in the
context is closely following Mark, suddenly begins to modify the
language of his source in an unusually drastic way, with the
result that what in Mark xiii. is a prophecy of the appearance
of the Anti-Christ in the Temple becomes, in Luke’s version, a
prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the enslavement
of its population. Now, seeing that in a.p. 70 the appearance
of the Anti-Christ did not take place, but the things which
Luke mentions did, the alteration is most reasonably explained
as due to the author’s knowledge of these facts.

On the other hand, the Gospel of Luke was, we have seen
(p. 407 f.), already on the way to becoming a standard work in the
Church of Ephesus when the Fourth Gospel. was written. If,
then, John cannot be dated later than a.p. 95, Luke cannot be
much later than a.p. 85. It will appear shortly that a date later
than A.D. 90 is not very likely for Acts ; hence as the Gospel was
written first, we arrive by another route at A.D. 85 as a probable
limit. If, however, the Gospel was written some years before
the Acts, before Luke returned to Rome and as soon as he came
across a copy of Mark, a date like a.p. 80 seems more likely.

AUTHORSHIP

But in the case of the Third Gospel the questions of the date
and actual place of writing are of less interest than that of
authorship, for two reasons. (1) The author of the Gospel also
wrote the Acts, and in large portions—the so-called ‘‘ we sections ”’

OH. XVIII LUKE AND ACTS: 541

—of that work he writes in the first person, as if to imply that he

was himself present on those occasions. If, then, Luke was the
author of the Acts, he lived in Caesarea for two years during
Paul’s imprisonment there ; and this—taken in connection with the
nature of the material in question—would make it morally certain
that the source we have called L consists largely of information he
there collected. (2) If Luke came originally from Antioch, the
hypothesis that Q was an Antiochene document is considerably
strengthened. For Luke would naturally begin by combining the
teaching source of his old Church with his Caesarean material—
thus forming Proto-Luke ; and he would inevitably regard Mark,
when he came across it later, as a less authoritative source.
And this is precisely what a critical analysis of our Third
Gospel suggests. Thus the question of the authorship of Luke
has in two respects an important bearing on the identification of
the locality of origin of the sources embodied in the Third
Gospel.

The authorship of Acts, however, cannot be discussed without
raising the large issue, whether, and to what extent, inaccuracies
and misconceptions of the historical development of the Apostolic
Age are to be found in that book, and how far the existence of
such is compatible with authorship by a companion of Paul.
Such compatibility was vehemently denied by F. C. Baur, and
his followers of the ‘“‘ Tiibingen School.” The first effectively to
expose the brilliant fallacies of Tiibingen was Renan in his book
The Apostles, 1866. Renan the sceptic, educated for the priest-
hood among the Breton peasants—where miracle is a matter of
everyday expectancy—gifted also with a real feeling for style
and character, had the requisite combination of freedom from
apologetic bias and sympathy with the atmosphere of a believing
age to approach the problem from the purely literary and
historical point of view. But the Tiibingen School were so en-
meshed in the Hegelian conception that history moves in accord-
ance with the formula “thesis, antithesis, and synthesis ”—
of which I shall say something shortly—that even to the present

542 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

day their disciples have never quite succeeded in approaching the
question in a purely critical and historical spirit. In the mean-
time, from the standpoint of linguistic analysis and archaeo-
logical research, Hawkins, Ramsay, Harnack and others have
been steadily piling up an accumulation of evidence favouring
the Lucan authorship. I had myself supposed the matter had
been finally settled ; it was, therefore, with a good deal of sur-
prise that I read the judgement by the learned authors of The
Beginnings of Christianity (vol. ii. p. 358) that, though ten years
ago they “ felt reasonably sure that the Acts was actually written
by Luke, the companion of Paul,” they had slowly come round
to the view that only “‘the ‘we sections’ and probably the
narrative adhering to them ”’ are his work.

The evidence from language, archaeology, “‘ undesigned co-
incidences,” etc., for the Lucan authorship is familiar to students ;
but being of a cumulative character it could not possibly be
presented in the space at my disposal. I propose, therefore,
to confine myself to some remarks on certain of the larger issues,
in particular those which, I gather, weigh most with such of the
contributors to the above-mentioned work as reject the Lucan
authorship.

I. The discussion is still haunted by the ghost of F. C.
Baur ; it is time this ghost was laid. Near the beginning of the
chapter (vol. ii. p. 299) of The Beginnings of Christianity entitled
“ The Case against the Tradition ” occurs the following sentence :

The element of greatness in the Tiibingen criticism is to be found
in the unity of the fundamental ideas by which it is dominated.
We have to deal not with a rationalistic criticism of details, but with
a brilliantly chosen point of view from which to examine and in-
terpret the whole of the apostolic and post-apostolic age. In accord-
ance with the Hegelian watchword that all which happens is deter-
mined by the sequence, Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, the Tiibingen
School constructed two periods: the first was one of embittered
conflict between Paul and the Judaisers, who were at one with the
original Apostles; and the second was a period of coneiliation,

which gradually made itself effective and marked the transition
from primitive Christianity to Catholicism.

OH. XVIII LUKE AND ACTS 543

In the course of the chapter—which I may, perhaps, be allowed
to characterise as able, fair-minded, and incredibly learned—
Professor Windisch himself refutes one after another the actual
conclusions of the Tiibingen School ; the one thing he thinks can
be saved from the wreck is their denial of Lucan authorship.
For myself I have no quarrel either with the date, “ the period
of the eighties or nineties of the first century,” which he suggests,
or, except in some points of detail, with his general estimate of
its historical value—so far, at ledst, as the last three-fifths of the
book is concerned. It is the very merits of the Professor’s dis-
cussion of the subject which impelled me to exclaim, However
did the sentence I have just quoted come to be written by any-
one who had seriously reflected on the principles of criticism or
on the nature of historical method ?

History is the endeavour to find out what actually happened,
not to force upon the evidence an a priorz point of view—however
“prilliantly chosen.” The characteristic singled out by the
Professor as constituting “the element of greatness” in the
Tiibingen criticism is precisely the one which all but deprives it
of any right to be styled historical criticism at all. History
written “in accordance with the Hegelian watchword that all
which happens is determined by the sequence ‘ thesis, antithesis,
synthesis,’”’ is not history at all. It is dogma disguised as history ;
it is “ tendency-writing ” of a far more misleading character than
anything produced by the apologetic or theological bias of the
writers whose view of history the critic professes to correct.
One might as well say that “the element of greatness ” in the
editor of the books of Judges is “ the brilliantly chosen point of
view ” which interprets the whole of the history of Israel in
accordance with the Deuteronomic “ watchword ” that national
prosperity and adversity are determined solely by obedience to
the Law of the Central Sanctuary.

The Tiibingen criticism was great, not because of, but in
spite of, its “ unity of fundamental ideas.” It created an epoch
in New Testament study through its appreciation of two points.

ὅ44 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

First, the literature of early Christianity must be interpreted in
relation to the practical and apologetic needs of the time ;
secondly, there is a development of theology within the New
Testament itself, of which the Fourth Gospel is the crown.
Owing, however, to the a priort “ unity of conception,” which
Professor Windisch styles its greatness, this. school completely
misconceived the nature of those practical and apologetic needs ;
and it was thus led entirely to misrepresent both the causes and
the course of that very evolution which it had the merit of being
the first to detect.

Karl Marx was a contemporary of F. C. Baur, and he wrote
the economic history of Europe on the basis of this same Hegelian
triad of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. He, too, made an ideal
construction of two periods. The former was a period of em-
bittered conflict between the “thesis” of capitalism and the
“antithesis” of proletarian revolt. The latter was to be the
“synthesis ”—a period of universal brotherhood and goodwill,
automatically resultant on the success of the class war. But
recent events have shown that, in real life, things do not work
out quite that way.

In the science of pure logic this business about thesis and
antithesis has some real meaning. As applied to history it is a
pedantic way of describing that tendency to react against the
fashion last in vogue which politicians call “the swing of the
pendulum.” But it is worse than pedantic, it is seriously mis-
leading ; it ignores the fact that the pendulum only swings
because there is a relatively stable pivot upon which to oscillate.
In all communities where there is vigorous life three parties are
always to be found—the “ die-hards,” the “ moderates,”’ and the
“red revolutionaries.” If the society manages to hold together,
it is usually because the majority hold something resembling
the moderate, 1.6. the “‘ synthetic,” view, and in the long run this
in the main prevails. But I know no case in history where
this has happened—except, perhaps, under the strong hand of
an autocratic power—unless the synthetic party, or at least the

CH. XVIII LUKE AND ACTS 545

synthetic spirit, has, though dormant for a time, been there from
the beginning. The spirit of conciliation is not a thing that is
born of internecine conflict.

The Epistle to the Galatians shows that at the date when it
was written there was acute division of opinion with regard to
the obligation of the Mosaic Law, especially as it affected the
position of Gentiles in the Church. Paul is the leader of the
progressives, James of the conservatives, while the leader of
the moderates is Peter.

And if the question be asked, which of these is the more
primitive ? the answer is contained in the simple observation
that Peter was one of those who forsook all to follow Christ ;
while James was one of the brethren who in his lifetime did not
believe in Him, and even went so far on one occasion as to en-
deavour to arrest Him on hearing that He was of unsound mind.
It would seem, then, that in this case the tendency which Baur
would style ‘synthesis’? was earlier in date than both the
“ thesis ” (Judaistic Christianity) and the “ antithesis ” (Paulin-
ism) which, according to the Hegelian programme, it ought to
have succeeded.

But among men of goodwill it is usually the case that the
leaders of any party are far less intolerant than the rank and file
and far more inclined to stretch a point in order to meet their
opponents half-way. It was so in the early Church. James,
Peter, and John—observe the order in which they are mentioned
(Gal. ii. 9)—gave Paul and Barnabas “the right hands of
fellowship,” having “ perceived the grace that was given” them.
They even went so far as to urge them to collect alms from
Gentiles for the poor Christians of Jerusalem. We may be pretty
sure, then, that those followers of James, who in his name pro-
tested against Peter’s associating with Gentiles in Antioch, went
to the full limit of their instructions. Again, there is no evidence
that the persons who visited the Galatian and Corinthian Churches
depreciating Paul and denying his Apostleship, did so with the
authorisation of the older Apostles. At Corinth there were

δ46 THE FOUR GOSPELS PY. IV

factions who said “1 am of Peter” and “1 am of Paul”; but
Paul himself is emphatic in declining to recognise the difference
as important.

Nothing better illustrates the a priori ‘dogmatic element,” as
opposed to the empirical historic, in the Tiibingen School than their
rejection of the story of the conversion of Cornelius at Caesarea
as legendary, or to be accepted with the utmost hesitation, on
the ground (a) that it attributes to Peter an attitude towards
Gentiles of which at that date only Paul was capable; (6) that
guidance bya Vision is a sign of legend. So far as visions are con-
cerned, the turning points in the lives of balf the saints have been
accompanied by visions regarded by them as expressions of Divine
direction; and in India and Africa to-day the same thing happens.
These things are partly a matter of individual psychology,
partly of race and training ; and it so happens, as I am arguing
elsewhere,! that this particular Vision conforms to the laws of
dream psychology in a way which guarantees it as a reasonably
accurate report of an authentic experience.

As regards the major issue, why, we ask, if Peter was in-
capable of the attitude implied in the story, is he found at Antioch
a few years later? Why, until pressure is brought upon him
by the adherents of James, is he content to be eating and drinking
with Gentiles in that city—as though he shared Paul’s view of
the relative unimportance of the ceremonial law? Peter’s visit
to Antioch is not once mentioned in the Acts ; it is attested by
the irrefutable evidence of Galatians. But Antioch is a long
way from Jerusalem, and Peter’s behaviour there in regard to
Gentiles is a very big step away from orthodox Jewish legalism.
Geographically Caesarea is the half-way house to Antioch ;
psychologically the conversion of Cornelius and the need of
justifying it to the Pharisaic Christians at Jerusalem is the half-
way house to Peter’s attitude at Antioch. So far, then, from
heing historically suspicious, the Cornelius incident is the missing

1 In my article “‘ Dream Psychology and the Mystic Vision,” which is to
appear in the Hibbert Journal for January 1925.

OH. XVI LUKE AND ACTS 547

link without which the behaviour of Peter, as attested by
Galatians, is psychologically inexplicable.

Under pressure from “ certain who came from James,” Peter
at Antioch went back on his. pro-Gentile liberalism. It was
doubtless represented to him that if he continued thus openly
to break the law he would ruin all possibility of converting “ the
circumcision” to Christ. Peter has been much abused for
giving way ; but in all probability those who urged this judged
the situation correctly. Peter was really face to face with the
alternative of, either ceasing to eat and drink with Gentiles, or
wrecking that mission to the circumcised which he felt to be his
primary call (Gal. ii. 9). Is he to be blamed because he declined
that risk? To Paul, Peter’s conduct seemed a disingenuous
abandonment of the principle of the equality of Jew and Gentile
before Christ—a principle which for him was involved in the
religious experience of the sufficiency for salvation of Faith
without the Works of the Law. But Paul’s theoretical formula-
tion of the relation between Faith and Works is, as the history
of later theology and exegesis shows, a difficult and a subtle
concept. It is highly improbable that, at any rate in that
abstract form, it had ever entered Peter’s head. But to Paul its
courageous assertion seemed vital for the success of the Gentile
mission—and from his point of view he was undoubtedly right.
The fact is that the relations of Jew and Gentile since the perse-
cution of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt had
brought things to such a pass that to surrender the obligation
of the Law meant the failure of the Jewish mission, while to
retain it was to sacrifice the Gentile. It was one of those tragic
situations that do sometimes occur when the best men for the
best motives feel compelled to differ upon a vital issue.

II. The decisive issue in the determination of the Lucan
authorship is not, primarily, the value to be attached to a
traditional ascription of authorship, however ancient and well
attested. It is, in the first place, the question what is the best
and most natural explanation of the occurrence of the first person

548 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

plural in certain of the later chapters of the Acts. The natural
and obvious explanation is that the author wishes, without unduly
obtruding his own personality, to indicate that he is himself the
authority for that part of the story. In view of the emphasis
which he lays upon eye-witness in the preface to the Gospel, it is
explicable that he should attach importance to it also in the
Acts, when it could be indicated without any clumsy quotation
of authorities.

An alternative explanation of the “ we sections” is that the
author is incorporating the diary of an eye-witness written in
the first person, and has forgotten to alter the first person to the
third ; or rather, seeing that the “ we sections” do not in them-
selves make a connected and coherent story but are bound
together by those that intervene, it must be supposed that he has
sometimes remembered and sometimes forgotten to make the
necessary alterations. In an ill-educated, clumsy, and careless
compiler, or one, like the editor of the book of Nehemiah, who
pieced together matter from his different sources on a purely
mechanical “ scissors and paste”’ method, this would be con-
ceivable. But the author of the Gospel and Acts, though not,
as has been rashly alleged, “a great historian” in the modern
sense, is a consummate literary artist.1 One of the sources which
he used for his Gospel was Mark. As this is still preserved, we
are enabled to study his methods of using sources. Nothing
could be further removed from “scissors and paste.” The
material derived from Mark is completely re-written in Luke’s
own characteristic style. The way in which, by trifling modifica-
tions of his original, he removes either faulty grammar or literary
obscurities or passages which might cause disquiet of an apolo-
getic character, shows an acute sense of the subtlest nuances
of language and style. Accordingly, if in another work by the

1 “ A professional writer,” “a skilled adapter,” are phrases used of him by
Prof. Windisch (op. cit. ii. p. 337 f.). But the Professor cannot have it both
ways—if the author is a skilled workman, then the “‘ we sections” are not due to
a careless oversight, they have a meaning.

OH. XVII LUKE AND ACTS 549

same author we find the first person occurring in a series of
passages where the third might have been expected, we must
conclude that it is not there by accident. It is meant to suggest
a meaning. It occurs in the brief section (Acts xvi. 10-18) in-
cluding the voyage from Troas to Philippi and what happened
there; then it completely disappears for four chapters, to reappear
again at exactly the same geographical spot when, on his return
journey some years afterwards, Paul again passes through
Philippi (xx. 5). It then continues, except in scenes and on
occasions when Paul might naturally be supposed to have been
unattended, until the end of the book. This cannot be accidental.
It is done with the express purpose of suggesting that the author
was in the company of Paul for the whole of the concluding
period covered by the narrative, but was not in his company on
any previous occasion, except for the brief voyage from Troas
and the visit to Philippi years before. That an actual companion
of Paul should have been with him on these occasions, and on
these only, is in no way improbable. That a person, who wished
to create the impression that he had been a companion of Paul
in order to give weight to his story, should limit his claim to be an
eye-witness in this extraordinary way is quite incredible.

III. Paul was one of those great men who are a source of
anxiety to their friends. His language at times was most “ im-
politic.” Some of the things he said about the Law were enough
to make the hair of a pious Jew positively stand on end. Suppose
a modern preacher were to say something like this: “ The Bible
had its function in the Divine economy, but the salvation it
offered was always unreal. The Bible is now obsolete; there
is no longer such a thing as a revealed moral code ; henceforth
you are free from the bonds of the old religion. Believe, and
do what you will—that is the good news I bring you.’ Such
a man would be promptly ejected from the ministry. But if
for “‘ Bible’ we write “‘ Law,” and for “ salvation ” “ justifica-
tion”’—and to a Jew these are the true equivalents—that is
exactly what Paul did say. And to the average Jew the fact

550 THE FOUR GOSPELS Pr. IV

that Paul tempered these statements with qualificatory remarks,
as that ‘‘the Law is just and holy and good,” or that he in-
sistently exhorted men to a life of righteousness, did not much
affect the issue. If the Law is abrogated, it 7s abrogated, it
matters little how politely it is bowed out; and if in the last
resort every man is free to do what is right in his own eyes,
it is a small thing that Paul’s personal standard happens to
be high.

The wonder is, not that the affair caused trouble in the early
Church, but that James, Peter, and John, after hearing him
explain his position, still felt able to give Paul “ the right hands
of fellowship ” (Gal. ii. 9). Paul must have been exceptionally
conciliatory on that occasion. He was conciliatory at times. —
He was a man of passionate outbursts; and when conciliation
was his mood, he would go to lengths—the circumcising of
Timothy is an example—which principle could hardly justify.
“To the Jews I became as a Jew, to those that are under the
Law as under the Law, if so by any means I might save some.”
Some pretty big concessions must have been in his mind when
he wrote this—perhaps some that he regretted. I do not think
Paul ever set his hand to the food-law compromise of the Apostolic
Decree (Acts xv. 29), written out in black and white. But it
is quite likely that it does represent the agreement reached
between him and the Three at Jerusalem, as interpreted and after-
wards put in writing and circulated by them. We all know what
sometimes happens when “ complete agreement ” is reached at
an “informal conversation,” and each party afterwards writes
down his own interpretation. That seems to me the point of
James’s reference to the Decree (Acts xxi. 20-25) ; he delicately
insinuates that Paul is reputed to be not quite loyal to the agree-
ment, and exhorts him to do some act which will make it clear to
all men that he did not wish to repudiate observance of the Law
so far as Jews are concerned. Luke, we note, was present at
this interview (Acts xxi. 17 ff.), and it is a natural inference that
he derived his conception of events (including the Council of Acts

OH, XVIII LUKE AND ACTS 551

xv.) from what James then said—re-writing the scene in the
form of a debate, after the manner of ancient historians. Luke
no doubt is in error; Paul had not set his seal to any compact—
the Decree had been sent out later—but he had, perhaps, in his
private conversations left the Three with the impression that he
had assented to its substance. And if Luke gathered this from
James’s speech, and Paul did not at the time vehemently repudiate
it, his error is a pardonable one.

Luke is also accused of misrepresenting Peter. But does he ?
In the Quo vadis legend is crystallised the popular impression of
Peter—a wobbler, but on the right side in the end. Peter, with
hesitation it is true, baptizes the Gentile Cornelius. A little
later he is found at Antioch eating and drinking with Gentile
Christians—and thereby, of course, himself transgressing the Law
of Moses. This is too much for James. If Peter is going to
give up keeping the Law, the mission to the Circumcision—
already jeopardised by the antinomianism of Paul—will be
totally wrecked. He sends a deputation to remonstrate. Peter
—realising no doubt that what they say is true, and that
if he persists he will wreck the Jewish Mission—withdraws,
to the intense indignation of Paul. About the same time a
mission goes round the Pauline Churches—with the cognisance,
we must suppose, if not at the prompting, of James—to try
and bring them round to a sounder view of the Law; and
the emissaries roundly deny the claim of Paul to the name of
Apostle at all.

But there is nothing at all about this in Acts! Why ?
Obviously, replies one school of critics, because its author be-
longed to a later age when these things were forgotten. That
answer is possible; but it strikes me as a little naive. The
silence of Luke is susceptible of another interpretation. In real
life there are things one does not mention because they are
too well known—things of which the proverb holds good, “The
least said, the soonest mended.” The most interesting incidents
in the career of a public character are often those which his

552 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

biographer is too discreet to print. And if that is so in our own
age—with its tradition of realism in literature, and its conception
of history as a branch of science—how much more so in an age
in which the idealist tradition in art and letters reigned supreme,
and in which the main purpose of history was supposed to be
moral instruction! The Acts was not written to record the
things which would interest a modern critic, but, in the first place,
to provide a Roman noble with the case for the Christian Church ;
and threatened institutions cannot afford to advertise internal
“ scandals.”’ Moreover, it looks as if the author had also to
consider the feelings of some difficult brethren inside the Church.
A secondary purpose of the book is quite evidently to be an
Apologia pro vita Paul.

The hostility of the Judaistic party had pursued Paul to Rome.
They were active during his imprisonment (Phil. i. 15 ff., 11. 2).
Tf he calls them “‘ dogs ”—not a term of endearment in the East
—we may be sure he was driven to it by sore provocation. We
can only guess at some of the things they had said of him—the
least would have been to accuse one who maintained that the
Law was abolished of wishing to abolish morality itself. And
judging by the standard of veracity in what Greek and Latin
orators say of one another, we may be pretty certain that they
accused him of abolishing morality in practice as well as theory.
If the Acts was written when this opposition had not quite
died out, and when the reconciliation of the reconcilable was so
recent that the situation was still delicate, a motive becomes
apparent for the ‘“‘dragging in” of certain trifling incidents quite
irrelevant to the main course of the story. Why are we told
so carefully that Paul circumcised Timothy, shaved his head
in Cenchreae, was so anxious to attend the Passover, defrayed
the expenses of a ceremonial purification? Because at the

1 Livy, Praef. 7, ‘‘hoc illud est praecipue in cognitione rerum salubre ac
frugiferum, omnis te exempli documenta in illustri posita monumento intueri:
inde tibi tuaeque reipublicae quod imitere capias, inde . .. quod vites.”
Tacitus, Ann. iii. 65, “quod praecipuum munus annalium reor, ne virtutes
sileantur, utque pravis dictis factisque ex posteritate et infamia metus sit.”

CH. XVIII LUKE AND ACTS 553

time when Acts was written it was necessary to prove to many
excellent folk that Paul was not anything like so black as he
was painted; he was not the antinomian his enemies made
out. Not only did he keep the moral law, at times he went out
of his way to keep the ceremonial as well.

Peter’s position also required explanation. He had com-
mitted himself to the Gentile mission; but later on he had
rather gone back on this—and no doubt the Judaisers ex-
aggerated the extent of his withdrawal. Precisely because his
later attitude was a shade ambiguous, it was necessary to
emphasise the Cornelius incident for all that it was worth in
order to show that after all it was Peter who, led by a Divine
vision, himself in a sense initiated the Gentile mission.

The Acts reads like a vindication both of Peter and of Paul
by one who realises that, up to a point, they had laid themselves
open to criticism, but who nevertheless has for them that almost
religious veneration which the Kast still has towards the teacher
and the prophet. By the time that 1 Clement was written Peter
and Paul are “the good Apostles,” almost ranking with the
heroes of the Old Testament. We infer that the period when
Peter and Paul required defending at Rome was well over by
A.D. 96. Acts—known, I suggest, to Clement—had done its
work. This would favour a date earlier, rather than later, than
A.D. 90.

IV. The Acts shows very little trace, the Third Gospel none at
all,? of anything that we can call specifically Pauline Christianity.
The question, then, arises, can Acts have been written by a
pupil of Paul? But, I submit, to ask the question in this form
involves a fallacy ; for there is not the shghtest hint in the Acts
that the author of the “we sections” was in any sense a “ pupil”

1 Tt has been argued that the veneration with which the Apostles are
regarded implies a late date for Acts. But Ghandi in his lifetime is a
Mahatma—+.e. all but an incarnation—and Rabindranath Tagore is saluted
by his admirers as guru deva, literally “‘ teacher god.”

2 Tf, that is, with Hort we reject xxii. 19b, 20 as an assimilation from 1 Cor.
xi. 24 f.; om. D Old Lat. and (partly) Old Syr.

554 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

of the Apostle. The way in which the “ we” suddenly appears
would be far more natural if he was already a Christian when he
first met Paul. If the Western text of Acts xi. 28 is original—
and it is more easy to explain the excision in B & Byz. than the
addition in D Lat. of “there was great rejoicing ; and when we
were gathered together ”—he was a member of the congregation
at Antioch to which Agabus prophesied the famine of a.p. 46.
Five or six years later he ‘‘happens’’—I use the word advisedly
—to meet Paul at Troas and (Acts xvi. 10 ff.) travels in the same
boat as the Apostle to Philippi, where apparently he at that time
resided. Of course he would become a member of the Church
founded there by the Apostle in his very brief visit. Five or
six years later still (Acts xx. 6) he joins Paul on his way through
Philippi to Jerusalem, most probably being chosen by that
Church to accompany Paul and the delegates from other Churches
to Jerusalem, in order to present their contribution toward that
collection from the Gentile Churches which Paul had for some
time past been organising.

So far there is nothing to suggest any specially close personal
connection with the Apostle. But at Jerusalem Paul is arrested
—and Paul is the greatest champion of Gentile liberty and the
most successful leader in the Gentile mission. Calamity elicits
new loyalties. Luke henceforth devotes himself to the service
of the Apostle, and is constant to the end—“ only Luke is with
me ” (2 Tim. iv. 11).

But it does not for a moment follow that he accepted Paul’s
characteristic theology. If Luke had been converted to Chris-
tianity fifteen years or so before the time when he became really
intimate with Paul, we should not expect him in any fundamental
way to change his own religious outlook. There is a further
consideration: Luke first met Paul shortly before he wrote
1 Thessalonians, and he was in his company years later when
he wrote the Epistles of the Captivity. Now if we only possessed
the letters written by Paul at the time Luke knew him best we
should never have heard of “justification by faith’ and the

cH, XVIII LUKE AND ACTS 555

whole cycle of conceptions linked up with that phrase. Hence,
if Paul’s letters reflect at all adequately the oral teaching he was
giving at the time he wrote them, it would not have been sur-
prising if Luke had said nothing at all about the above-mentioned
doctrine. But, as a matter of fact, in the first speech he assigns
to Paul, in the synagogue at the lesser Antioch—which, of
course, he means to be understood as giving, not the speech
actually delivered there, but the line of argument Paul employed
when addressing a Jewish audience—he makes this doctrine the
climax to which the whole speech leads up. But he does not
attempt to elaborate it, for two obvious reasons. (a) If Acts was
written at Rome, it was written for a Church where the Epistle
to the Romans was already a classic. The mention of “justifica-
tion by faith.” was equivalent to saying “as expounded in
Romans.” As Luke was compressing thirty years of Church
history into a document which occupies that number of pages in
a Greek Testament, he had better use for his scanty space than
to attempt a “ potted version” of the argument of an Epistle
with which his audience were already perfectly familiar. (6)
It is highly improbable that Luke had any clear appreciation of
the real significance of this aspect of Paul’s thought—at any
rate it is a vommonplace of theologians that no other church
writer had it before Augustine, and he only in part. This aspect
of Paulinism is, of its very nature, a reaction against a religion of
Law centring round a sacrificial system related to a deeply
ethical sense of guilt. Mediaeval Latin Catholicism was another
such religion, and, therefore, Luther understood this side of
Paul; but no Greek ever did, or ever could—so why should
Luke? What Luke and the Gentile Church of his time deduced
from Romans was the conclusion that the Mosaic Law was
abrogated by Christ; but the more heartily people welcome a
conclusion, the less need they often feel for really compre-
hending the argument by which it is reached.

A critical historian should, unless the contrary be. proved,
assume that the speeches in Acts are “ Thucydidean,” and are

{

556 THE FOURK GOSPELS PT. IV

to be understood in the same way as the speeches in any con-
temporary historian—that is to say, though they are written
“in character,” their real purpose is to afford the historian an
opportunity for inculcating ideas which he himself wishes to
express. Theologians have often called attention to the primi-
tive Christology of the speeches attributed to Peter—but doctrin-
ally there is no essential difference between them and those
attributed to Paul. How could there be? No one in those
days had any notion of an “ evolution of theology ” ; to Luke,
as to all his contemporaries, that which was true was Apostolic
and, therefore, also primitive. The theology underlying the
speeches of Acts—and, of course, for this purpose the speeches
attributed to Peter must be supplemented by that ascribed to Paul
on the Areopagus—should be read as a presentation of Luke’s
own theology. That is precisely their value to the historian.
To the Fathers Luke is the echo of Paul, to the Tiibingen School
he stands for post-apostolic Christianity; but those early
speeches in Acts are too primitive for that—they represent the
average Gentile Christianity of Antioch.

What Acts really represents—modified a little by later experi-
ence and touched only here and there with a phrase caught up
from Paul—is pre-Pauline Gentile Christianity. But given the life-
history of its author which a natural reading of Acts suggests
—that is what we should expect of the Syrian physician Luke.1

V. If the Lucan writings were first circulated in Rome it

1 Since the War we have all become so much accustomed to glaring dis-
crepancies between the accounts of the same event by persons presumably
truthful and undoubtedly well-informed, that the sting has been drawn from
the pet arguments of the older critics that the existence of discrepancies between
Acts and the Epistles proves that Luke could not have been in personal contact
with Paul. There is only one such that need concern us—the visits of Paul
to Jerusalem and the Apostolic Decree of Acts xv. I mention this because I
can neither follow Harnack in accepting the Western text of the Decree (by
which it ceases to be a compromise relating to unclean meats), nor would I
commit myself unreservedly to the theory of Ramsay—further developed by
Emmet—that the visit mentioned in Galatians ii. is the famine visit in Acts.
Luke appears to think Paul had assented to the food-law compromise. I have
already suggested how we can explain this mistake. There remains, however,
the minor discrepancy in the number of visits to Jerusalem. Of this the

OH. ΧΥ͂ΠΙ LUKE AND ACTS 557

becomes unnecessary to decide the vexed question whether or
not Luke had read Josephus. The question arises from the fact
that Luke’s statements violently conflict with those of Josephus
in regard to the dates of Lysanias (Lk. ii. 1-2) and Theudas
(Acts v. 34 ff.). It has been maintained by distinguished scholars
that Luke’s statements can be accounted for on the theory that
they are the result of a hasty perusal, and a consequently im-
perfect recollection and misunderstanding, of Josephus. Person-
ally I am quite unconvinced that there is dependence of any kind.
Schmiedel, whose statement of the case for dependence is the
most elaborate in English, finds it necessary to suppose that
Luke was using, not Josephus directly, but some notes that he
had made after reading him. But if a gross mistake is to be
attributed to imperfect notes, it would surely be more natural to
suggest that the notes in question were taken down hurriedly
at some lecture, rather than in the course of a perusal of a book,
especially as it was.not so possible with ancient methods of
writing as with modern print to make mistakes through running
one’s eye rapidly over the page.

Now there is not the slightest improbability in the supposition
that Luke had heard Josephus lecture in Rome. Josephus was
granted by Vespasian rooms in the Imperial Palace, and remained
in favour with subsequent emperors. Luke also, I have sug-
gested, had a connection with the Flavian house. The writings
of Josephus were addressed to the Roman world at large, and it
would appear that after a.p. 70 he for the most part lived and
wrote in Rome. In that case, unless his practice was quite
different from that of contemporary writers, it would have been
a matter of course for him to recite large portions of his works
to public audiences before they were published in written form.

simplest solution has always seemed to me to be that propounded by Renan.
The delegates who brought the famine contribution from Antioch (Acts xi. 30)
were Barnabas and another; Luke erroneously imagined that other to be
Barnabas’s (future) colleague Paul. On Luke’s representation of the phenomenon
of “‘speaking with tongues” at Pentecost cf. p. 220 above.

1 Encycl, Bib., art, * Lysanias and Theudas.”

558 THE FOUR GOSPELS ΡΥ. IV

Pliny and Juvenal constantly refer to this custom—the latter to
expatiate on the boredom it induced. Plutarch tells us that
while in Rome, at about this date, he was so busy lecturing, and
doing minor political business, that he never had time to master
the Latin language—an observation which incidentally reveals
the extent to which Greek was a second language of the educated
native Roman as well as of the immense city population of foreign
origin. The Antiquities of Josephus was published ὁ. a.p. 93.
It is a long work and would have taken many years to compose
—probably most of the interval since the publication of his
earlier work, The Jewish Wars, about a.p. 78. Josephus was
extremely conceited, not at all the man to lose any opportunity
for publicity, and he would do much to be in the literary and
social fashion. Moreover, his writings were largely intended for
propaganda purposes ; he wished to do his best to reinstate the
credit of the Jewish people. He would certainly have recited
parts of the Antiquities at intervals during the ten years before
its publication. Fashionable Rome felt bound in etiquette to
attend the recitations of its noble friends; but a parvenu like
Josephus would have been only too glad to fill up the back seats
with unimportant people like Luke.

VI. Inadequate attention has been given to the bearing of the
Preface of the Gospel on the question of authorship. The other
Gospels are anonymous; Luke is not. True, his name is not
mentioned in the Preface, but that applies to other Roman writers
—Livy and Tacitus, for example. The author’s name in such
cases would be indicated on a title attached to the roll. Luke’s
Preface would have no point at all if the original readers did
not know the author’s name. In effect, it is the author’s apology
for venturing to produce a Gospel at all. It implies that the
Church for which he wrote already possessed a work of the kind,
but that he claimed to be in a position to improve upon it. But
unless his name was well known—one might almost say unless
he was known to have had some connection with Apostles—
this claim would not have been admitted. Moreover, knowing

CH. XVIII LUKE AND ACTS 559

the use he made of Mark, we cannot doubt that in his reference to
previous writers, though Q and other such collections may have
been also in his mind, it is of Mark that he is mainly thinking.
With the materials at his disposal he might well consider that he
could improve upon a Gospel which had no account of the
Infancy and the Resurrection Appearances, and very little dis-
course; but to say this bluntly would have been tactless, for Mark
was the Gospel on which many of his readers had been “ brought
up.” By the vague and general “ Forasmuch as many have
taken in hand . . . ” no one’s feelings could be hurt.

Luke, unlike Matthew, left a considerable portion of Mark
unincorporated ; hence—at any rate at Rome—the new Gospel
did not supersede the older and shorter work. The Roman
Church was conservative ; besides, its claim to possess the most
reliable Apostolic tradition was strengthened by having two
Gospels, one by a disciple of Peter and the other by a follower of
Paul. But the concurrent use in the same Church of two versions
of the story of the Life of Christ demanded a change in current
nomenclature. We are so used to the idea of there being four
Gospels, known always by their authors’ names, that we are apt
to forget the earlier period when no Church had more than one
Gospel, and when this was commonly spoken of, not by its
author’s name, but simply as “the Gospel.” 1 But the moment
two such works began to be current side by side in the same
Church it became necessary to distinguish the Gospel “ according
to Mark” from that “according to Luke.” Indeed, it is
probably to the fortunate circumstance that Mark and Luke
were so early in circulation side by side that we owe the
preservation of the names of the real authors of these works.

The fact that two books on the same subject cannot be in
circulation together without each bearing some name to mark

1 This state of things survived till the fifth century or later among the
Aramaic-speaking Christians of Palestine. Burkitt shows from a Rabbinic story of
R. Eliezer that the sacred book of these Minim was called evangelion (Christian
Beginnings, p. 74 £. (London Univ., 1924)). This proves, not only dependence
on a Greek Gospel, but the use of “ Gospel”’ as a title of a book before 100 a.p.

560 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

their difference disposes of the suggestion of Mr. H. J. Cadbury +
that the attribution of the third Gospel to Luke may be merely
an inference from the “ we sections” of Acts. He suggests that
some acute critic of the second century, searching for the author
of an anonymous document presumed to be by a companion of
Paul, proceeded by rejecting the names of any whose presence
would not fit the notices in Epistles and Acts combined, and
thus, by a process of elimination, arrived at the name “ Luke.”
Such a theory overlooks the fact already noted that the Preface
of Luke’s Gospel would be meaningless unless its author’s name
was known to the original readers ; while if these were members
of a Church which already possessed a Gospel, the necessity of
distinguishing the two would from the very first have prevented
the names of either being forgotten. The point, therefore, to
which Mr. Cadbury calls attention really cuts the other way
—for it would be very remarkable that the name which
tradition ascribes to the Gospel should happen to be that of the
only one of Paul’s companions who (taking the “ we sections ”
at their face value) could have written the Acts, unless it were
the name of the actual author.

VII. But it is not only on the merits of the argument that I
personally accept the Lucan authorship of the Gospel and Acts.
Even if the arguments were exactly balanced, the principles of
historical criticism, as I conceive them, would suffice to incline
the scale in that direction. The first duty of the critical historian
is to ask, in regard to every statement made in his authorities,
is there any possible bias for which allowance should be made 2?
In the present case we have not far to seek. Wherever the earlier
tradition was vague or doubtful, a Catholic writer of the time of
Irenaeus would be tempted to favour that form of it which gave
the maximum of Apostolic authority to those Four Gospels
which were regarded as the pillars of the Church. Now two of
these are assigned to Apostles; two are not. This distinction
is, for the critic, of the first importance. The tradition which

1 Of. Foakes-Jackson and Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 261,

OH. XVIII LUKE AND ACTS 561

assigns two of them to Apostles is one whose credentials will need
most careful cross-examination; and, if there be found any
features in the Gospels themselves which make it hard to believe
they were the work of Apostles, the tradition will require a pro-
portionately greater amount of evidence to justify its acceptance.
On the other hand, the ascription of the other two Gospels to
persons who were not Apostles appeals at once to the critic as
being almost certainly authentic, just because it runs counter to
the natural bias of the age.

From the point of view both of sentiment and controversial
advantage, it would have been extremely convenient to assign
the Gospel of Mark to Peter and that of Luke to Paul; and later
writers do their best to effect this. Paul’s phrase “ according to
my Gospel”? (Rom. ii. 16) is interpreted as a direct allusion to
the Gospel of Luke, which is thus assumed to have been written
under his supervision. Again, the Gospel of Mark was written,
according to Irenaeus (185) after the demise of Peter, according
to Clement (200) during Peter’s lifetime, but without his approba-
tion, according to Kusebius (324) with his authentication, accord-
ing to Jerome (397) at his dictation.1 Indeed it would seem as if
an attempt was made in some circles at a very early date to make

1 Cf. Iren. I. i. 1 (Gk. in Eus. H.E. v. 8); Clem. ap. Eus. H.E. vi. 14;
Peter neither forbade nor commended; Eus. ΠΗ. Εἰ. ii. 15 (φασί), Peter approves
for reading in Church; Jerome, Ad Hedibiam, xi., ‘‘ Marcum, cujus evangelium,
Petro narrante, et illo scribente compositum est.’”? But Jerome knew better,
for De vir. illustr. viii. he says the same as Eus. H.H. ii. 15.

I take this opportunity of suggesting an explanation of the curious “ tradi-
tion’? mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (ap. Eus. H.E. vi. 14) that “‘ the
Gospels containing genealogies were written first.” This, I think, is not a
tradition of fact but a traditional explanation of the lack of an account of the
Infancy, Resurrection appearances, etc., in Mark, on the hypothesis that, when
Mark wrote, the Roman Church already possessed an account of these things
in Luke. Matthew, it was inferred from Papias, was originally in Hebrew, and
the Greek translation would not yet have reached Rome when Mark wrote.
The Gospel of Mark could conceivably be regarded as a supplement to Luke,
for it contains much that is not in Luke; it could not be intended as a supple-
ment to Matthew plus Luke. The idea that Luke wrote before Mark would
naturally be suggested by the common Western order of the Gospels—Matthew,
John, Luke, Mark—(Clement has a Western text), or by the order of Tertullian

(Contra Marcionem, iv. 2), a contemporary of Clement—John, Matthew, Luke,
Mark.

562 THE FOUR GOSPELS PT. IV

the Apostle directly responsible for the Gospel; for Justin Martyr
(155) quotes a statement that occurs in Mark as from the “ Mem-
ories of Peter.” Irenaeus had read Justin; and he must in any
case have known that some people spoke of the second Gospel as
Peter’s. If, then, he does not accept it as Peter's work, we can
only conclude that the tradition assigning the second and third
Gospels to Mark and Luke was so definite, so widespread, and, by the
time of Irenaeus, already so ancient, that it could not be displaced.

The attribution of one of the four canonical Gospels to Luke
is even more remarkable. Mark at least was known to have
lived in Jerusalem ; he may have witnessed some of the events
he describes, and he had some special connection with Peter,
the leader of the Twelve. Luke was not only not himself a
witness, he was a follower of an Apostle who was not himself a
witness, and he was only that during the last years of that
Apostle’s life. With a very little “doctoring” of the text—
merely changing ‘“‘we” to “they” in a few passages—the
Acts could have been made to read as the Commentaru of
Paul, writing of himself, like Caesar or Xenophon, in the third
person. The Gospel then could have been assigned to Paul
himself. But this was not done.

A critic, then, who knows his business—that is, who recog-
nises that his function is analogous to that of the judge («purns)
and not of the counsel, whether for the defence or the prosecution—
before giving a verdict in favour of a tradition which ascribes a
Gospel to an Apostle, will require an attestation stronger than a
classical scholar would think necessary for a work attributed to
Xenophon or Plato. On the other hand, only if overwhelming
evidence is forthcoming that the internal characteristics of Mark
and Luke cannot be reconciled with their traditional authorship
will he decide that the tradition is open to serious question.

We thus arrive at the quite simple conclusion: the burden
of proof is on those who would assert the traditional authorship
of Matthew and John and on those who would deny it in the case
of Mark and Luke.

APPENDICES

563

ie ὕ ΤΟΝ ΤΩ μὴν
i ce Je i acl an gt se ον

ἵ ! p om )
Poly, Aah ! 7 ἜΝ . [are
δι} = 7
Δ ; i δ).
PN) j pee
Gat Ve Toate "
γι: hy * os at Ὁ ! ᾿
7 i ᾿ “ld
sae a i’ a
a. 7 ¥ ar
=

—
=
ee
¥

Ξε 4 τ

me ᾿
.
-

2: κ᾽
=

> a me

aa
«-Ἐ
>

—
«8

as oe

~ 19)

ἢ ὯΝ ( | G ἢ] ΠΝ ‘ Ayal
mays oy ΤῊΝ Po ok om ood
Nya ay if : 1 M3. ν

q 7 f 7

Υ ὴ “
Ay : 4 Tia χνν
i Le ἣν 21 ‘ ᾿ Harbus | ει

' ‘
da Uy
ve νὴ i '
ey ’
A) if {
ἘΦ ἢ] :
i 4
Lk * ‘
Pee mn ἐς ν
νι .
" ΓᾺΡ ui
νον δε ξ
Ν J 4
" “ιν Ἵ
\
©, !
δ᾿ YW 4) } © ωὶ ἂ αὐτῇ
‘
1 Ὺ ΔΝ
δὴ dowd tye Vio et a6 ‘
ts ᾿ 4 ἱ aye 4s
' ᾿
4"

APPENDIX I

THE ORIGIN OF VARIOUS READINGS

Ir is often forgotten that the ancients did not wear spectacles,
and that, therefore, the profession of scribe must have been
proportionately more trying to the eyes. Now one of the
commonest defects of eyesight is “‘ astigmatism,” as a result of
which lines drawn in one direction appear much fainter than
lines drawn in another. This, obviously, would tend to make it
easy to confuse one letter with another; but a confusion easy
to one scribe would not affect another. Again, any weakening
of the power of concentration renders it easy to make an error of
position—and so to pass from a word in one line to a similar word
ina line below. Omissions of lines from this cause are technically
described as due to “ homoioteleuton ’’—literally “like end,”
though as a matter of fact omission from this cause quite as often
takes place in the middle of a line as when the identical letters
stand at the end of a line. Evidence of this can be found in
ancient MSS. It may not be irrelevant to remark that in a type-
written copy of one chapter of this book I found no less than three
cases of omission, two of one and one of two lines, occurring from
the eye of the typist passing about two-thirds from the beginning
of a line to similar words in a lowe: line. Besides this, we must
remember that between reading the exemplar and writing there
is always a short interval during which the invincible tendency
of the human mind to modify anything it apprehends has time
to operate, especially if the attention of the scribe wanders or

if he has not had special training. At the present day the
565

566 THE FOUR GOSPELS APP. I

difference between the standard of accuracy of one copyist and
another, especially in the matter of omitting or misreading
individual words, varies immensely. But absolute accuracy is
an ideal never attained over a long piece of writing.

It will be worth while to consider briefly how mistakes, other
than intentional additions or corrections, most naturally occur.

(1) Variations in the relative order of the words in a sentence
in different MSS. are very common. Alterations of order would
originate in this way: a scribe accidentally omits a word; if
he notices it before he has finished writing the next word, he
puts it in himself, sometimes as a marginal or overline correction,
but sometimes, in order to avoid an unsightly mess, at the next
place in the sentence where it makes sense. This latter alter-
native was specially attractive to a Greek scribe, since in that
language, much more easily than in English, the order of the
words in a sentence can be rearranged without materially
altering the meaning. If the original scribe does not notice an
omission, a corrector puts it in the margin. In that case the
next copyist may easily insert it in the text in the wrong place
—this is one of the commonest mistakes in MSS.

(2) Marginal notes, sometimes consisting of various readings
derived from another MS., often led to corruption, through
something being copied into the text by a scribe who supposed
what he saw in the margin to be words accidentally omitted.

(3) Another frequent phenomenon is the substitution of
synonyms. We can see at least four ways in which this might
arise. (a) The attention of the scribe may wander in the
interval between reading and writing and he may reproduce
the sense rather than the actual words of his model. (Ὁ) He
may omit a word, or at some subsequent time a drop of water
or a flaw in the papyrus may cause it to be obliterated. The
next copyist will have to make a guess at the missing word.
For example, in Mt. xxvii. 4 the sense requires a word meaning
“innocent” to follow αἷμα ; suppose the original text had δίκαιον,
the reading of L, but that in some early copy the word was

APP, I THE ORIGIN OF VARIOUS READINGS 567

omitted ; the owner makes a guess at the “ missing word,” and
ἀθῴον, the reading of By etc., is the result. (c) Occasionally
we come across cases where it looks as if a literary word has
been deliberately substituted for a slang one in order to im-
prove the style.

(4) In the Gospels, the commonest of all corruptions is the
result of “assimilation.”” This occurs when a word or phrase
in the original text has been replaced by one which occurs in
the parallel passage in another Gospel.

(5) Many variations consist in the substitution of a participle
for καί with a finite verb, or the use of different prepositions, con-
junctions, or particles. These may be due to any of the above-
mentioned causes—wandering attention between the moment
of reading and writing, omission and subsequent correction, in-
fluence of the recollection of parallels in another Gospel, or the
attempt, unconscious or deliberate, to improve grammar or style.

In the earliest period of all—so the phenomena of the
Western text especially suggest—scribes seem occasionally to
have attempted quasi-editorial improvements similar to, but
much slighter than, those which Matthew and Luke make in
reproducing Mark.

In order to illustrate the exact nature of the problem we
have to deal with, I set out and discuss briefly the readings of
the leading MSS. in three passages in Luke.?

Lk. viii. 9, “ what this parable might be ? ”

τίς αὕτη εἴη παραβολή; Β 579.
τίς αὕτη εἴη ἡ παραβολή; NW 88 700.
τίς εἴη αὕτη ἡ παραβολή; 1 &c.

τίς αὕτη ἡ παραβολή Ld.

τίς εἴη ἡ παραβολὴ αὕηΡ.͵ ADOYW.
τίς ἡ παραβολὴ αὕτη i

περὶ τῆς παραβολῆς Β.

The seven readings quoted above present an unusually compli-

1 A similar instance is Lk. ix. 35 ἐκλελεγμένος NS BL versus ἀγαπητός D Byz.
2 T have selected these from an immense list drawn up for another purpose
by H. C. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, Quaritch, 1914.

568 THE FOUR GOSPELS APP. I

cated instance of diversity in order; they also illustrate two other
points. (a) Remembering that all the older MSS. were written
in capitals, with no division between the words and without accents
or breathings, we see that difference between the first two of
the list depends on the letter H (=) being written once
or twice before παραβολή. If x is right, the error of B is
that technically known as “haplography ” (1.6. writing only
once what should be repeated twice) ; if B is right, » is guilty
of “ dittography ” or mistaken repetition. (b) The reading of R
is particularly instructive. The probable explanation is that
tis αὕτη εἴη ἡ had formed a complete line in an ancestor which
had accidentally been omitted in the exemplar copied by R.
(MSS. exist with eleven letters to the line). Something had to
be done to make grammar and sense of the nominative παραβολή
left without a construction. The scribe makes the obvious
guess περὶ τῆς παραβολῆς. Note that the differences between
the first six variants cannot possibly be reproduced in English.

Lk. xi. 10, “ It is (or “ shall be ”’) opened.”

ἀνοίγεται BD.
ἀνοιγήσεται SCL.
ἀνοιχθήσεται AE ete.
ἀνηχθήσεται W.

The first three variants illustrate the tendency towards
grammatical improvement; the fourth is probably due to
defective eyesight of the scribe of this MS. or its ancestor, or
possibly, if the scribe wrote from dictation, to an error of hearing.

Lk. ix. 10.

πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθσαϊδά ΒΊῚ, 88 ete.

κώμην λεγομένην Βηθσαϊδά D.

τόπον καλούμενον Βηθσαϊδά Ψ:

τόπον ἔρημον ts 157 Syr. C.
ἔρημον τόπον 69.

τόπον πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαϊδά 1 &c. 700.

τόπον ἔρημον πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαϊδάν A W and Byzantine.

The whole clause καὶ παραλαβὼν... Βηθσαϊδά om. 579.

APP. I THE ORIGIN OF VARIOUS READINGS 569

This is an exceptionally complicated, and also an exceptionally
instructive, set of variants; since, in spite of the bewildering
diversity of attestation, we can by the application of sound
principles of criticism ascertain with practical certainty what
Luke originally wrote. The apparently hopeless confusion begins
to disappear the moment we glance at a Synopsis of the Gospels
and note that in Matthew (xiv. 13) and Mark (vi. 12) ἔρημον τόπον
“a desert place” takes the place of “ city called” or “ village
named, Bethsaida.”’ We conclude that the reading τόπον ἔρημον
may be dismissed as due to “ assimilation ” of the text of Luke
to that of the other Gospels. It follows that all the readings
which contain the word τόπον represent attempts of scribes or
editors to combine the readings of two MSS., one containing
τόπον ἔρημον, the other a reading mentioning a city or village
Bethsaida. We are thus left to choose between the first three
readings which give the name Bethsaida.

Here we have a double instance of “substitution of synonyms.”
It would be most simply explained on the hypothesis that the
text presupposed by © is original, while κώμην was changed
to πόλιν in one local text, and καλουμένην to λεγομένην in
another.

This conclusion is shown to be one of high probability by
“internal ” considerations. Bethsaida is classed among “‘ cities,”
Mt. xi. 21 =Lk. x. 13; a scribe, therefore, who wished to replace
an original κώμην that had fallen out, or to emend the text,
would inevitably conjecture πόλιν. On the other hand, the
context makes it extremely unlikely that Luke wrote πόλιν.
“He took them and withdrew apart (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν) intoa. .
called Bethsaida.” One does not retire for privacy to a “ city” ;
but one may do so to a country village. Again, two verses
later the disciples say, “Send the multitude away that they

570 THE FOUR GOSPELS APP, I

may go into the villages and country round about and lodge,
and get victuals: for we are here in a desert place.” But this
would be absurd language to use if they were anywhere near a
“city.” Again, there can be no reasonable doubt that Luke
wrote καλουμένην and not λεγομένην. The word καλούμενος
to introduce a name or appellation is used 11 times in his Gospel ;
but it does not occur at all in the other Gospels. On the other
hand, λεγόμενος, in this usage, while it occurs 13 times in
Matthew, is only twice found in Luke (xxi. 1 and 47), and
the second of these two cases is doubtful, since D Old Lat.
1 157 support the alternative reading καλούμενος.

There remains to make our choice between the form Βηθσαϊδά
BD Old Lat. and Byécaiday © A and the Byzantine text.
Every time the name occurs in the Gospels there is a variation
in the MSS. But we note that B, where the name occurs in
Matthew and Mark, uses the form with the final »; but in
Luke, B, both here and in Lk. x. 13, has the form without the v.
But καὶ has the final ν not only in Mark but in Lk. x. 13. Now,
since the tendency of scribes is towards “assimilation,” a
reading which makes the Gospels differ is the one more likely
to be original. But © has the form with ν here, and in Lk. x. 13
s is supported by 1 &c., 13 &c., 28, 700 etc. This shows that
the reading with ν must have arisen long before the date of
writing of x. We conclude, then, that Βηθσαϊδά is the true
reading, but that Βηθσαϊδάν is a very ancient variant. Not
only that; from the fact that it is preferred elsewhere in Luke
by Νὶ we may reasonably conjecture that it stood in the text
of καὶ in Lk. ix. 10 before the words κώμην (or πόλιν) καλουμένην
Βηθσαϊδά were turned out to be replaced by τόπον ἔρημον from
the other Gospels. Here, surely, we are on the track of the
explanation of this assimilation in x of the text of Luke to
Matthew. (κατ᾽) ἰδίαν. . . (Βηθσα)ιδαν is a combination of
letters which invited omission by homoioteleuton. -The inter-
vening words amounting to 26 letters, 1.6. probably two lines,
were omitted in a remote ancestor of &; then, in order to make

APP. I THE ORIGIN OF VARIOUS READINGS 571

sense, the words τόπον ἔρημον were conjecturally inserted from
the parallel passage Mt. xiv. 13. The fact that 579 has actually
omitted this very passage (only beginning the omission six words
earlier)—apparently through homoioteleuton between (ἐποίησ)αν
and (By@caiéd)ayv—shows the plausibility of this explanation of
the apparently drastic alteration of the text made by x, a MS.
which as a rule is usually exceptionally free from corruption
by assimilation to parallels in other Gospels.

Between them the three passages of Luke above discussed
exhibit the main influences which resulted in the production
of variants in the text. And since they are influences which
would operate in every locality, but in regard to a different set of
readings in every locality, in the course of time they would in-
evitably give rise to local texts differing from one another very
little in regard to readings materially affecting the sense, but
very considerably in minute points.

Tur TexTuAL HOMOGENEITY OF THE ® FamILy

No early MS. has a text entirely homogeneous. Even B, as Hort
insists, has not escaped “sporadic” corruption, while x has a
considerable infusion of “‘ Western”’ readings. In view of the
statistics as to the differences of these two Alexandrian MSS.,
which nevertheless are the most closely related of all MSS.
earlier than A.D. 500, given on p. 329, the hypothesis that the
various members of fam. © represent a single local text would
not be seriously imperilled unless the number of variants within
the family exceeded the number of the differences between δαὶ and
B. So far, however, as I have been able to test it, they are very
few; from which we may infer that the extent to which the
leading MSS. of fam. © have been crossed by any text, other
than the Byzantine, is very small.

Lake’s Table of readings in Mk. 1. exhibits 102 variants ;
but in only 5 of these do members of the family give a reading
found in any text other than that of the family or, of course,
in the Byzantine text. In regard to the same set of 102
variants § differs from B 16 times. In the Table for Luke ii.
1-25 at the end of this Appendix there appear 44 departures
of fam. © from the T.R.; out of these 44 variants there are
5 in which members of this family differ from one another, and
6 in which k differs from B. The similar Table for John xii. 1-6

1 Jlarvard Journal of Theology, July 1923, p. 270 ff.
572

shows 3 differences between x and B, but not a single instance
of one member of fam. © opposing another in any non-Byzantine
reading. The Table of variants common to the family and the
text used by Origen in his Commentary on Maitthew tells the
same tale. It may, however, be worth while to supplement
this evidence by the result of a few preliminary tests which I
essayed before drawing up these tables.

(a) The lists of classified readings in the Introduction to
Lake’s Codex 1 and its Allies afforded another means of testing
the relation of @ to fam.1. List G in the Introduction (p. 1xxi)
contains readings peculiar to fam. 1. In Matthew there are 8
of these. I find that © agrees with fam. 1 in 3 of these readings,
but in the other 5 has been conformed to the Byzantine text.
According to von Soden 2 of the 5 not supported by © are
found in 1424, and 2 more in one of the Purple MSS. List
F gives readings “‘ which are supported by a few other MSS., but
cannot be identified with any authority generally recognised as
primary.” I checked this list against © for the part of Matthew
which is extant in that MS. (much of Matthew i.-v. is lost).
Twenty-four readings of fam. 1 are concerned. Ten of them
appear in @; in all the other instances © gives the Byzantine
reading. List E gives readings in which fam. 1 agrees with Bx
against D Old Lat., Old Syr., and Byz. In Matthew there are
23 of these; 12 of them are found in @, which otherwise
follows the Byzantine text. List B gives the readings found in
fam. 1, for which the Old Latin is the chief ancient authority.
In Matthew there are 11 of these, 4 of which are found in 9.
It appears, then, in whatever direction we look for the readings
which are in some special way characteristic of fam. 1, we find
that a large proportion of them appear in ©; and, where that
does not happen, the occurrence of the Byzantine reading in
© shows that in these passages it does not represent its own
characteristic text.

(b) Proceeding to test the relation of Θ and fam. 13, I at once
noted that Θ᾽ exhibits the famous Ferrar reading (found in

574 THE FOUR GOSPELS APP, IT

346—826—828) ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα κτὰλ., Mt. i. 16. Then, by way
of a fair test, I opened my copy of Beerman and Gregory’s
edition of © at a venture in that part of the volume which gives
a collation of the readings of Θ with the other MSS. The book
opened at p. 657, and I worked through the next six pages, which
happened to include Mt. xviii. 25 to xxiii. 2. In this short
section there are a very large number of readings of Θ in support
of which one or more members of the Ferrar group are quoted ;
but since the majority of these are also found in at least two of
the great uncials B x L D, they afford no evidence of a special
connection between © and fam. 18. There are, however, 9
readings in which © is the only uncial (apart from fragments)
supporting the reading of fam. 13; 4 readings found in both @ and
fam. 13 but supported by B only of uncials; 4 ditto supported
by D only; 2 ditto supported by D A, and 2 ditto supported
by inferior uncials. This seems strong evidence of a very close
relation between the text of Θ and that of fam. 18.

(c) To test the text of these MSS. in Luke, I turned to the
Introduction to Hoskier’s collation of 700, in which he gives
the MS. support for all variants of this MS. that are in any
sense uncommon. In the first chapter of Luke there are 26 such
variants. I found that, if the readings of Θ᾽ were added to those
of the MSS. cited by Hoskier, every single one of these readings
of 700 was supported by at least one other member of the family.

(d) So far as Mark is concerned, 565 would appear to be
slightly superior to Θ; but in the other Gospels it has suffered
more from Byzantine revision than any other of the group with
which we are concerned. It was for that reason that I selected
Luke 11. 1-25, John vi. 55-vii. 3, and John xii. 1-6 for the
Tables in the Text and Appendix. A glance through Belsheim’s
collation had shown me that the proportion of non-Byzantine
readings in 565 was above the average in these passages, and
therefore their character could be most easily tested here. It
so happens, however, that all these are passages in which ©
and 700 have suffered rather heavily from Byzantine correction,

so that the Tables somewhat understate the value of these two
MSS. as compared with other members of the family,

Theoretically, of course, no proposition as to the homogeneity
of the texts of these MSS. can be held to be proved until every
reading in all four Gospels in each MS. has been compared.
Practically, the chances are very small that the various tests
enumerated would have come out as they did unless the funda-
mental text were unusually homogeneous.

THe PurpLe MSS., Fam. 1424, AnD x°

There are four MSS. of the sixth century, N—S—O and 9,
written on purple parchment in letters of silver—except O, which
is in letters of gold. O contains only a fragment of Matthew; ®
and = contain Matthew and Mark almost complete ; N contains
portions of all four Gospels. N—3—O are so much alike that
Mr. H. R. 5. Cronin, who has made a special study of the group,
believes that they were copied from the same exemplar.1 In
general they present the Byzantine text; but there is a small
proportion of earlier readings. The text of ® is closely allied
to that of N——O, but with an additional infiltration of Ὁ
readings.

When I first began testing the homogeneity of fam. © there
happened to be on my table Mr. Cronin’s edition of Codex N
(Texts and Studies, v. 4). Recollecting that the books speak of
a connection between this MS. and the Ferrar group, it occurred
to me to use some of his lists to test the text of Θ, choosing Luke
for the investigation. One list (p. lix) gives the readings in
which N agrees with fam. 13, against the T.R. and all the leading
uncials. There are 7 such readings in Luke. Of these 3 occur
in @; of the remaining 4, 1 occurs in 181 (fam. 1), 1 in 565, and
1 in M (fam. 1424). Another list (p. lx) gives agreements of N
with the texts of the ‘“‘ Better Uncials ”’—meaning either B or
x L combined—against the majority of MSS. In Luke 22

1 Tezxts and Studies, v. 4 (1899), and J.T.S., July 1901, p. 590 ff.

576 THE FOUR GOSPELS APP. II

instances are given; Θ supports N in 10 of them. Noticing that
for most of the 22 Mr. Cronin quotes the support of fam. 1 or
fam. 13, I proceeded to test the cases where he does not quote
such support by means of von Soden’s Apparatus, which of course
gives the readings of some new members of the Ferrar group
and of 700. It then appeared that in only 3 of the 22 readings
did N lack the support of either © or one of the Θ family. That
is to say, N hardly ever agrees with δὶ B L except where these
support fam. 0.

The early date of the Purple MSS. made it seem specially
worth while to explore still further the relation between their
pre-Byzantine element and the text of fam. ©. And, as Mark is
the Gospel where the characteristic text of both groups of MSS.
is best preserved, I proceeded to test the text of N in that Gospel.

Mr. Cronin gives (p. lif.) a list of 48 readings in Mark where N
and > agree together, and are supported by a very few MSS.
against all the leading uncials and also against the Byzantine text;
in each he cites the MSS. which support them. From these it
appeared that 31 of the 48 readings in N © occur in one or more
then known members of fam. Θ. But, checking the list by the new
evidence of © 700 and von Soden’s revised collations, I found the
number rose to 37. This struck me as remarkable. I then noticed
that, of the remaining 11 readings, 9 were supported by the
group of MSS. which von Soden classes together under the
symbol I*, but which on the analogy of the accepted usage in
similar cases I have called fam. 1424. This group he defines as
one intimately related to fam. 1 and fam. 18, but preserving a
few readings which have been eliminated from these MSS.

The next step was to test the combination N = by the Table
of readings characteristic of fam. © given in the article by Lake
and Blake in the Harvard Theological Review. N is not extant
for the beginning of Mark, but = is. The results of a scrutiny
of the 102 variants in Mark i. there tabled, tested against the
collation of Σ by Gebhardt and Harnack, may be succinctly
presented as follows :

Agreementsof 2withT.R. . . . . 84
Agreements of Σ with fam. Θ᾽. rorya γ}
Conflations of text of fam. © and T. Cpmivhan οὐδ

These figures materially strengthen the conclusion that the
ground text of ΝΣ was identical with that of fam. ©, only that
it has suffered a much larger amount of revision to the Byzantine
standard. Obviously, however, they would amount to demon-
stration if it could be shown that von Soden was right in view of
the relation of fam. 1424 to fam. 1 and fam. 18.

Accordingly I proceeded to test the character of fam. 1424 by
reference to Lake and Blake’s Table for Mark i. Assuming that
where von Soden fails to cite the evidence of any of these MSS.
it agrees with the Byzantine text, it appears that in 52 of the
102 variants cited fam. 1424 represents the T.R., but in 40 it
goes with one or other member of the © family ; 9 times it has
readings differing from the T.R. but not found in any of the six
representatives of fam. © cited in the Table. One of them, how-
ever (the omission of εὐθύς i. 43), is found also in 828, a Ferrar
MS. quoted by von Soden but not included in Lake’s citations ;
and one is practically the fam. © reading (1.6. the addition καὶ
τεσσάρκοντα νύκτας 1. 13, only with a transposition of the last
two words) ; and two are found only in one MS. of fam. 1424 and
look like errors of the individual scribe. In one fam. 1424 agrees
with D, but all members of fam. @ except © itself here go with
T.R., and the reading of © ἦλθον for ἀπῆλθον, found in no other
MS., is probably a slip, so that here fam. 1424 may well preserve
the original fam. © reading. In all other variants, so far as one
can infer from von Soden’s genera] system of citing (and I know
of no collation by which to check him), fam. 1424 gives the

Byzantine reading.
2P

578 THE FOUR GOSPELS APP. II

The Tables of readings in Luke and John, given p. 83 and
p. 582 ff., show similar results, and justify us in treating fam. 1424
as a genuine and important constituent of fam. Θ. I may add
that in the course of writing this book I have had to study the
MS. evidence given by von Soden in innumerable cases up and
down the Gospels, and have found nothing to conflict with the
results obtained above. Accordingly, though it may be that a
few of the less important of the twenty-eight MSS. which he
groups as I® ought not to be included, he has discovered a real
group ; and fam. 1424 must be treated as an important con-
stituent of the © family. I have also found reason to accept
his view that 544 (ε 387) is a true member of the same
family.1

It occurred to me to test the readings of the corrector of δὶ
whom Tischendorf cites as 8° or 8“, and who probably ? belongs
to V or VI". The chapters of Matthew which I tested
showed a predominantly Byzantine text with a sprinkling of
readings definitely of the fam. © type. This is interesting, as
in the O.T. and in the Epistles x° seems to have used a MS.
in the hand of Pamphilus.? Unless, as is possible, but not
probable, Pamphilus in prison copied a MS. of Lucian’s recen-
sion, this shows the Byzantine text dominant in Caesarea by
V or Vyicent.

Tur K II Group

von Soden classes M, which has a very small non-Byzantine
mixture, as an inferior member of fam. 1424; Bousset (Teat-
kritische Studien, chap. iv.) regards M as a poor relation of
ΚΠ. The lists of the readings in his chapter on “ The K II
Group ” favour von Soden’s view that these two uncials (which
are supported by a number of cursives) have the same relation
as have ΝΣ to the fam. © text, except that they are more

1 A partial collation of 544 is given in Scrivener’s 4dversaria Critica, p. l-liv
(Cambridge, 1893), under the number 657.

* Cf. the facsimile edition of δὲ by K. Lake (Clarendon Press, 1911), p. xvii f.
5 Bousset, op. cit. p. 45 ff.

predominantly Byzantine and have a smaller admixture of
the older text. von Soden classes A, the famous Codex Alex-
andrinus, with K II; and, so far as I have tested the suggestion,
I think he is probably right in supposing that the non-Byzartine
element in A represents mainly, if not wholly, the fam. ® text.
W.C. Braithwaite (Expository Times, xiii. pp. 114 ff.) says that
the recently discovered uncial Y has affinities with Καὶ II; and
a hurried look at the collation of the MS. given in Gregory’s
Textkrituk (pp. 1928 ff.) seemed to show that its non-Byzantine
element (perhaps 10%) is at any rate closely connected with
fam. ®. Since, however, all the sub-families of fam. © overlap
one another, it is not of much importance, especially where
the non-Byzantine element is small, whether in border-line
cases, like A or M or Y, a MS. is included in one sub-family
or another, or regarded as forming a class by itself. The same
consideration applies to the question (discussed p. 80, note)
whether 22 should be included in fam. 1 or not. What does
matter is to know whether the non-Byzantine element in a
mixed MS. belongs mainly or entirely to the © family.

The K II group is regarded by von Soden as a definite
recension ; he styles it the K* text, and holds that it was used
by Chrysostom in his Homilies on John and in the so-called
« Antiochene Commentary”’ on Mark (by ? Victor of Antioch
+420), and on Luke by Titus of Bosra, 370. I am a little
sceptical as to the clear-cut distinctions within the Byzantine
text which von Soden believes he can detect; but, if the K®
text was used by these fathers and is that of the V°°"* MS. A,
may not this be the text of Lucian? The K?! text in other
works of Chrysostom may be due to scribal revision to the
VI°"" Byzantine text.

UA, ETc.

Two other sub-families of MSS., regarded by von Soden
as authorities for his “1 text,” are headed respectively by U
and A. The non-Byzantine element in fam. U (in which he

580 THE FOUR GOSPELS APP. II

includes the interesting cursive 1071 1 (e 1279)) seems to be about
as large as that in the Purple MSS.; and, so far as I have
observed, it represents the fam. © text. Fam. A seems to
have a smaller non-Byzantine element, and therefore is more
difficult to test; but I do not happen to have noticed any
readings which suggest that this element is other than the
fam. @ text ; and I would say the same thing of 1604 (ε 1358).

An immense number of MSS. are assigned by von Soden to
the I text. Unfortunately, however, his inclusion of DW™*,
Old Lat., Old Syr. in the I text vitiates his principle of classi-
fication ; for it would justify his assigning to that text a MS.
containing a considerable mixture of specifically Syriac or
Western readings. This consideration precludes one from the
simple expedient of classing as authorities for the text of
fam. ® all MSS.—merely excepting DW™*, Old Lat., Old Syr.
—cited in von Soden’s Apparatus as authorities for the I text.
They must be scrutinised again in every case. And this caution
is the more necessary as von Soden is over-anxious to enlist MSS.
in support of the I text. For example, 157 is reckoned as an I
MS., and it undoubtedly has a number of readings characteristic
of fam. ®; but a much more striking feature of this curiously
mixed MS. is its support of the Alexandrian text. The frag-
ments PQ and R von Soden classes as authorities for the I
text ; I‘ also is claimed as a weak supporter of the same text—
perhaps rightly, but it also has some striking Alexandrian
readings.”

One naturally asks if all traces of the old text of Antioch
have disappeared. If we are right in surmising that this was
the Greek original of the Old Syriac, a predominantly Byzantine
MS. in which the remnants of such a text survived as a small

1 Described and collated by K. Lake in Studia Biblica, ν. p. 132 ἢ,
Oxford, 1903.

* My confidence in von Soden’s classifications was seriously shaken by
testing the VI-e"t. fragment 089 (ε 28=Tischendorf’s 6°) containing Mt. xxvi.
2-4, 7-9, which he quotes (vol. i. p. 1350) as “ἃ pure I text.” Tischendorf
gives 8 variants from this fragment, of which 7 occur in BX and the remaining
lin ΒΔ.

element of mixture might easily be mistaken for a weak member
of fam. ©, since fam. Θ and the Old Syriac have so much in common.
Again, there must have been early local texts in Asia Minor
and Macedonia—the parts of the world in which the majority
of our later MSS. were probably produced—and it would be
very strange if no readings at all from these texts had crept
into the later MSS. The astonishing thing is that, of the sporadic
non-Byzantine readings that survive in later MSS., there are so
few which are not also found in one or other of the great texts
which we can identify. I can only account for this by supposing
that, at the time when the transition from papyrus to parchment
was made, the smaller churches, instead of copying their local
texts, obtained their new parchment copies from the larger
centres. This change of material seems to have taken place
early in the fourth century, that is to say, just after the revisions
by Lucian and Hesychius were accepted at Antioch and Alex-
andria. And we know that the copies of the text of Caesarea
with which Eusebius supplied Constantine (from which we have
suggested many representatives of fam. © are descended) were
written on parchment.

In order further to illustrate both the essential homogeneity
of fam. ® and the curiously sporadic and unsystematic char-
acter of the assimilation of earlier texts to the Byzantine
standard, I append two Tables modelled on that drawn up by
K. Lake to which reference has been so often made.

‘TABLES.

aoavdno aot 513+ GAN 1 δ } 5 τῷ Ss Ss aoavdno aot 579 —
(ὁ “4 sa “d) wyatipjo GN F 5 5 I 4 -ῷ } (‘0 “4 579 6) wy2hAp 10 OT (pre) α
min0ges 5 a aS) Ps a 5 :5 ΦΌΛΧΟρΩ9 FL aas
εζ ὍΣ — Ss & ii — 9 ᾿ } (αο 9719.» “8) ς P+ ZT aan
soday CGN 5 295 5 7 - Ps } δίκιο.
ana Πα δ } } 5 = ES) 5 =5 amt TT
sana- Gan 8 5 5 == τ) 5 Ὡ (‘go "αἡ srarint+ OT
οὗ 207d aN + an j Ss Ss — Ss Ss 5 op Ronda — a
diosua Πα ΝΣ F BS) 5 a 5 5 Ὁ hang
οἰ κοσαχ- Gn δ aS Ss -- Ss J 5S οἵ 207day —
nog) + Gi } } = 15 5 ὦ (rox “αὴ) n0g7— 6 awn
akamiou abt CGN 5 Ss Ss -- Ss ᾿ .5 σἰμαγίτοιν sks
hsan bt vdmX L(G)GN .9 & ‘Ss -- } 5 Ss pvdmX kinn bt 8
οὐ οι CaN +s 2 Ὁ Sg 5 I © CES 1
αλλ GN F 5 5 τῶ: 5 5 55 enka 8
ayrpaak + Ss δ J -- 5S j BS ayrpank — aasx
rogonpodhoun 4« j "δ iG -- εξ δ ES) γορροϑφνυσλομῦ G ax
9- qaN 5 B) 5 — 5 5 I (oI, 5) O+ F
ayo, GN 5 Ὄ 5 ie one a Ὁ pean a
avg? ὦ Ὁ ᾿ = = 5 3 nosnn? aa (x)
γορρϑφυοσλομο gn } i Ss -- Ss ° a Ss mpovpndioun 8
ΨῈ 5 } } 2 ᾿ 3 (-dhoun 8) 4— % aax
mpospvdhoun CGN 5 fi Ss -- } τ FS mpovpvdLoun
aor~ qn 5 } 5S - .5 5 5 (chou -w) no +
39+ CaN 5S 5 ὩΣ 3 ot Ξ9 5 70ST Υ
5 10 SONIGVEY HUT “wmvf OOL 999 80 stuf turf 60 SONIGVaY ATV,

Sel Ἢ 97

"ἅϊππο “Sg (0M} Jo) ouo UI= ,
“FlOSPL UIGILA Poplarp st A]rue} oy} OIOYA SesvO MOS SZUIpoI poyoyoulg

ἐπ anhy onasayy (1 3 Ss τας Ss J — } aorky al vrlazayy an
ak+ Παΐδ — -- } - — } - (aoky, vriasary “α) ab —
aor Πα δ +s } 5 5 Ὁ I } 4
sigoyns 44 δ 1 1 Ss Ss Ss Ss sig/aona N
‘dgan ak a 1 ἘΠ Ss ἘΠῚ S Ss Ss al mee} an
ak+ ΠΑΝ 59 § § ES a} Ὁ :8 au—J οἷ
m+ g¢N 59 BS Ss G ἢ G 5 (σαν) mt— €% a
avolgolyug 44 J Ss Ss Ss Ss Ss } avolgmduyus 77 N
ϑθρ Gq 8 S aS S 5 τὸ ES, A3gXa\ 8
m+ ΕΝ 2 5 5 s } 9 " εν -- Τῷ a
Ὁ- «ὦ } Ὁ I 9 } 3 9 (rmdani "8) 7m + a
Ss 4B - Ἀ Ss ig } anolgmdluy us
Coe qn — -- 1 -- — -- -- ee) IZ a
{ 19dl.194n0 DLaDL qn — J - us a Ss ἘΣ DLADL Lipa) a
plaviu+ Cn J S J S Ss aS ES) DLADL — 61
avovriavg? «4 5 τὸ } ES 5 Ὃ Ὁ aojnnang? 81 a
AOLNOL ++ an ss J Ss Ss 1 ἐς: 1 αο.1πο0. -- [εἰ
avo1dmah319 } 5S J 5 S J ES apowWoahs Ly aan
aodazap 4 } Ss } ἔς } 1 Ss aodne 91 ax
sa- Gan fF Ss 5 τ .5 25 9 (aug “8) 9)» -Ὁ
-- - -- -- J — -- snosan
Berne aqqs 5 S 5 5 " Si 25 Fier,
40.173 aq “ὃ Ss J BS Ss Ss 5 Aanoy vy
70.070} ΑὉ 10 1D + Ὁ } 1 ES) ES } δ roumdgap 10 ΤῸΝ --

‘poozuvrend you st Aovinoov 92Π|084Β 2Π6 ξ 5914 87, 9597} UO ῬΘάλΟ4896, 1996 SBY Θ180 4891:)---᾿ ΠῚ Δ
499 JO UOI}RT]OO 8, WIEYSTeg UL puNo; oq 01 4201 51 sTYy 2Π6 { Surpeer ΔἼΠΠΈ} 961 sy10ddns 994 48η1 Avs Uspog uoA puB “yosiy, ἢ
"Απὸ “gg (0M9 10) θὰ τπ = ,

9). ρΌρ3᾽

ἸῸΝ 49Χ19

Λ3Χ 3712

510. --

"αἰιρ ‘wordt
am00NDI0L

9 _—

Soammy +

iyo —

noLap +

Db 1 -
AOLAD SDQOU 5η0..
shan

οἕ SIDL —

dg 570..ὄ “Β Ὑ339
433011333
αϑήϑχίι
AOT/LAYOL
nogdna +

nid nv

4 437113NDADAND
39+

pedo
133 A0AU19Q

ol Lap +

ano avoli0u3
SN =

9 -

.5 10 SONICVAY

"ΠΟΙ ΒΒΙΟΟ 8 “ὯΝ amXa |

aan

ΡΩ

xz
heh LoL LH Ln Lun LL YW LLLL nbn bu
HHL LYLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWbh

aasx
PZPL wf OOL

Reelin

Hoew LHL How bh Lun Hn wn ὦ ὦ ὦ ἢ

999

ES 5 BS
5 5 +3
} } }
Ὁ <5 5
ES Ὄ 5
ES) ε }
εἰς Ss j
ES 5 I
<5. I }
5 } 5
5 KS }
5 } τ
BS j 5
5 ef 2
-9 ε J
5S ES 1
5 Ὁ 5
5 «fF 5
τ ES 5
-5 -9 }
ΞΘ, Ps }
© 5 5
Ss aS Ὄ
5 } BS)
Ss 5 BS
5 j ES
ES } S
τῷ } BS)
80. st wnf τοιοῦ

OTT Re Vy Ll.

DTDHYWbYbHnbunwhL hh Hunn bun Lun LU Hn wa

η9σί...9
amXa

ΔΞΧΧΘΥ 9

(s1oXmLu “8) 570. -+
amoonvids *alg

AM100NDIQ G

(oy “) 9+

(svgaoy *d) soammz -- Ὁ

(1910 *d) Lyo+
ποι! --

‘D Ὁ πολ ‘UO
5ΌρΟΙ SAOL AOLAD
skian>

(493109 -d) ,, 570. Ὁ
(sktav *d) *30r/3u0
4330/3 uD

apiayk
SNOYILAYOL
aogdpa —

ΥἹΟ ΟΣ ¢

(sav) ano *yvav
(δον “) 99 -
nidv yl

A0A1L13Q 133

ot MLD —

avoliou3s DY ὦ

(amdwaa ‘d) 51 0+
(.r8I 9288) 9+ T

AUNV, FHL 0 soNIavay

aan

aax

aaws

APPENDIX III

THE TEXT USED IN
ORIGEN’S “COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW ”

OF this work a portion is preserved in Greek, another portion
in an old Latin translation ; they overlap to some extent. The
Latin and Greek differ in a way which shows that they represent
a different line of textual transmission. The quotations from
the Gospel of Matthew, which in the earlier part are short frag-
ments, towards the end become almost a continuous text of the
Gospel. I therefore select chaps. xxii. (1-36) and xxv., the
one extant in Greek, the other only in Latin, as favourable
specimens for testing both traditions of this work of Origen.
The edition cited is that of Lommatzsch.

The Tables include all variants in which the text as quoted
by Origen differs from the Textus Receptus, and shows how
far his text is supported by either B, x, D, or by any member
of fam. ©. Since our object is to test the nature of the
non-Byzantine element in fam. ©, readings of individual
members of the family are not cited when they agree with
the T.R. Readings in which Origen agrees with the T.R.
against two or more members of fam. @ are-not set out
at length in the Tables. It seemed sufficient to state that
in chap. xxi. there are 8 such, and 6 in chap. xxv. There are
also altogether 11 variants in which Origen agrees with the
T.R. against a reading which, since it occurs in only one
of the six authorities ©, 1 &c., 18 &c., 28, 565, 700, may
possibly not be a true “family reading.” The readings of Θ,

1, 13—69—124— 346, 565 and 700, also 22, have been derived
585

586 THE FOUR GOSPELS APP. III

direct from the editions or collations of the several MSS. by
Gregory, Lake, Ferrar, Belsheim, Hoskier, and Sanders. For
other MSS. I follow Tischendorf or von Soden. The readings
of 2, the new members of the Ferrar group (e.g. 983), and
fam. 1424 are only given where the better-known members of
fam. Θ give the Byzantine reading.

TABLE I

Text of Origen’s
MSS. supporting. ὀὐζμμ να τα Matthew MSS. against.
xxii.).

1. καὶ ἀποκριθεις ὁ

22 33 Latt. Ἴησους εἶπε παλιν ἐν | (παλιν εἰπεν) NBD Ὁ
1, 69,124 NB Ὁ mapaBoras avros. (αὐτοις ἐν 7.) ς
(om. αὐτοις) Θ

2. ὡμοιωθη ἡ βασιλεια
τῶν οὐρανων ἀνθρωπὼω
8 1, 22 βασιλει, doris ποιων | (ἐποιησε) NBD Ts:
γαμους τω νΐω αὐτου.
4. ἰδν To ἀριστον
1 (-- μου). (+ μου) NBD ¢
ἡτοιμασα, οἱ ταυροι μου
και τα σιτιστα τεθυ-
None μενα, καὶ (1°) τα | (—ta) All known MSS.
παντα [(2°) παντα]
ἕτοιμα, δευτε εἰς τους

γαμους.
5. οἱ δὲ ἀμελησαντες

6 1, 22,138 ἄο., ἀπηλθον, ds μὲν ἐπι | (ol . . . οἱ)

700 NB τον ἰδιον ἀγρον, os | (5... ὃ) } te δ᾽

Θ 18 &e. NB D δε ἐπι τὴν ἐμποριαν (els) s
αὐτου.

6. οἱ δε λοιποι κρατη-

None σαντες αὐτοῦ τοὺς | (τους δουλους αὐτου) All known
δουλους ὕβρισαν Kat MSS,
ἀπεκτειναν.

1, 22 D | 7. και πεμψας το στρα- | (τα στρατειματα)ὴ NB >

1, 22 τευμα αὐτον ἀνειλε (ἀπωλεσεν) NBD δ

Tous φονεις ἐκεινους,
και τὴν πολιν αὐτων
ἐνεπρησε.

8. τοτε λεγει τοις δου-
λοις αὐτου ὁ μεν Ὕαμος

Σ 983 (=fam.13) Ὁ ἕτοιμος ( -- εστινὴ οἱ (+ ἐστιν) ΝΒ ς

δε κεκλημενοι οὐκ
ἦσαν ἀξιοι.

apr. tt ORIGEN’S “COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW” 587

TaBLE I—(continued)

Text of Origen’s
MSS. supporting. Commentary on Matthew MSS. against.

(xxii.).

15. rore πορευθεντες ol

Φαρισαιοι συμβουλιον

61 ἔλαβον Kar’ αὐτου | (—Kar’ αὐτου) RBD ς
ὅπως αὐτον παγιδευ-
σωσιν ἐν λογω.

16. διδασκαλε, οἰδαμεν
ὁτι ἀληθὴς εἰ, και
τὴν ὁδον Tov θεου ἐν
ἀληθεια διδασκεις, και
οὐ μελει σοι περι
οὐδενος" οὐ yap βλε-
mets εἰς προσωπον

ΘΙ, 28, 565, 700 dvOpwr ov. (ἀνθρωπων) NBD ς
18. yvous δε ὁ Ἴησους

700 THY πανουργιαν. (πονηριαν) ΝΒ ς
20. τινος ἡ εἰκων

258 (-avrn) και ἡ ἐπι- | (+ad77) SBD ς

γραφη.

21. ἀποδοτετα καισαρος

Θ δθδ, 700 D Tw καισαρι, και τα | (-- τω) ΝΒ (5

Tov θεου Tw θεω.
23. ἐν éxewn Ty ἡμερα
mpoondOov αὐτὼ Zad-

1, 13, 28,700 NB D δουκαιοι (—ol) λε- | (τ οἱ) ς
yovres μὴ εἰναι ἀνα-
στασιν.

25 ἦσαν δὲ yap ἡμιν
ἑπτα ἀδελῴοι" και ὁ

6 1, 22,700 ΝΒ πρωτὸος ‘ynuas ére- (γαμησαΞ) D ΘΗ
λευτησε.
- 80. ἐν τῇ yap ἀνα-
στασει οὐτε γαμουσιν,
οὐτε
22 NBD (19, 2°) γαμιζονται
Θ 124, 700 (39, 4°) γαμισκονται | (ἐκγαμιζονται) ς
1 ἀλλ’ εἰσιν ὡς (εισιν after οὐρανω) NBD =
(εισιν before ἐν οὐ-
ρανω) 13 ete.
6 1, 22 οἱ ἀγγελοι (-- οἱ) ΝΒΌ ς
© 1, 700 BSD (-- του θεου) ἐν (+ Tov θεου) =
(+ θεου) 813 ete.

1, 13 ete. ΝΒ Tw οὐρανω. (-- τω) D =

588

THE FOUR GOSPELS

TABLE II

MSS. supporting.

Text of Origen’s
Commentary on Matthew

(χχν.)
(Old Latin Translation),

APP. IIL

MSS. against.

Θι

28 ΝΒΡ

M, F?

6 1,69,124 BD

8 S

NB
Latt.

1, 13, 700

NB D
NB D

1. ... quae... exie-
runt obviam sponso
et sponsae,

Ὁ τρίτην
ex iis erant

fatuae, et quinque
prudentes.

6. Media autem nocte
clamor factus est:
ecce sponsus venit,
exsurgite obviam ei.

9. Ite (— autem) magis
ad venditores.

13. Vigilate ergo quia
nescitis diem et
horam.

autem

14. Homo quidam
peregre proficiscens
vocavit servos suos.

16 Abiit autem qui
quinque talenta
acceperat . . . et
lucratus est alia
quinque talenta.

17. Similiter (-- οὔ)
qui duo _ ϑοοθρὶῦ,
lucratusest ὁ
(—et ipse)
in iis alia duo,

19. Post multum tem-
poris venit dominus
servorum illorum.

20. Domine, quinque
talenta mihi dedisti,
ecce alia quinque
superlucratus sum
(-ab illis).

21. Ait (—autem) ei
dominus ejus: euge,
serve bone et fidelis.

(omit)

(ἦσαν ἐξ αὐτωνῚὴ

(φρονιμοι. ..

(ἐξερχεσθε)
(+ de)

NB -

ς
μωραι) Sa

NBD ὦ

(+€v ἡ ὁ υἷος του ἀνθρωπου

ἐρχεται)
(-- τι 5)

(ἐποιησεν)

(+ xa)
(-- λαβων)

(+ Kat avros)

(-- ἐν αὐτοις)
(χρονον πολυν)

(rapedwxas)

(+ ἐπ adrois)

(+ de)

1 M is an inferior member of fam, 1424; F is one of Soden’s Ki MSS., i.e. Byzantine with

a small admixture of readings characteristic of fam. 13,

arr. mt ORIGEN’S “COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW” δ89

TasBLEe I]—(continued)

Text of Origen’s
MSS. supporting. Commentary on Matthew MSS. against.

(Xxv.)
(Old Latin Translation).

22. Accedens autem
et qui duo talenta
acceperat, ait: do-
mine, duo talenta
mihi dedisti, ecce
alia duo lucratus

8 124,700 ΝΒ ἢ sum. (-—ab illis) (+ ἐπ avrots) s

24, Accedens autem
et qui unum talen-
tum acceperat, ait :

8 D domine, scio (—te) | (Ἐ σε) NB ς

quia homo durus

es.

D | 25. Et timens abii et (ἀπελθων) NB ς
abscondi talentum
tuum in terra: ecce
habes tuum.

31. Cum venerit Filius
hominis in gloria
sua, et omnes angeli

Θ 1, 565 NB D (—sancti) cum eo. (+ ἁγιοι) Si

D | 39. Aut quando te | (ποτε δε) NB Sy
vidimus infirmum
aut in carcere ?

41. Discedite a me,
maledicti, in ignem
aeternum, quem

1, 22 D praeparavit Pater | (ro ἡτοιμασμενον)ὺ NB ς

meus diabolo οὗ

angelis ejus.

The above Tables give all the readings in these two
chapters in which Origen differs from the T.R.—45 in number.
It will be observed that in 37 of these Origen is supported by
one or more members of fam. ©; while he is supported by
D 24 times, by B only 16. Thus in sharp contrast.to the
steady support by fam. @ is the way in which καὶ B D jump from
side to side, now supporting, now opposing, the text of Origen.
The conclusion is irresistible: the text upon which Origen was
lecturing represented neither an Alexandrian nor a “ Western ”’
text, but almost identically that of fam. 0.

APPENDIX IV
JEROME AND THE CODEX SINAITICUS

In the Preface to the Vulgate Gospels, which takes the form
of an open letter to Pope Damasus, Jerome defends the principles
he has adopted in revising the text of the Old Latin. Of the
Latin, he says, no two copies are alike, but we have a standard
of authenticity, since for the New Testament, unlike the Old,
the Greek was indubitably the original. Hence the discrepancy
between the different Latin copies can only be corrected by
reference to the Greek original. But the MSS. of the Greek
text which are named after Lucian and Hesychius, both in the
Old and the New Testament, have been badly edited and inter-
polated—as may be seen by comparing them with ancient
vernacular translations. He has, therefore, used, as a standard
by which to correct the Latin, Greek MSS. which are really old.1

1 «Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant, quibus ;
tot enim sunt exemplaria quot pene codices. Sin autem veritas est quaerenda
de pluribus, cur non ad Graecam originem revertentes, ea quae vel a vitiosis
interpretibus male edita, vel a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius,
vel a librariis dormientibus aut addita sunt, aut mutata, corrigimus? Neque
ego de Veteri disputo Testamento. . . . De Novo nunc loquor Testamento:
quod Graecum esse non dubium est. . . . Hoc certe quum in nostro sermone
discordat, et diversos rivulorum tramites ducit, uno de fonte quaerendum est.
Praetermitto eos codices, quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos, paucorum
hominum asserit perversa contentio: quibus utique nec in Veteri Instrumento
post septuaginta interpretes emendare quid licuit, nec in novo profuit emen-
dasse : quum multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata, doceat falsa
esse quae addita sunt. Igitur haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quattuor
tantum evangelia, quorum ordo” (he means the Greek as opposed to the Old
Latin order) ‘‘est iste, Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas, Johannes, codicum Graecorum
emendata collatione, sed veterum.”

590

arr.tv JHROME AND THE CODEX SINAITICUS 591

Seeing that Jerome is writing a careful and considered Preface
to a revised version of the Four. Gospels, and that he only
mentions the Lucianic and Hesychian versions in order to
contrast their inferior text with that of the “ ancient codices ”’
he has himself used, I simply cannot understand why some
scholars have raised doubts as to whether the Lucianic and
Hesychian recensions included the New Testament as well as
the Old.

But why, we may ask, was Jerome so contemptuous of the
work of Lucian and Hesychius? Isuggest two reasons: (1) Jerome
at this date was quite convinced that the true text of the O.T.
was only to be found in Origen’s Hexapla!; it was only later in
his life that he had recourse to the original Hebrew. But the
Hexapla had been published a generation before Lucian and
Hesychius began their work. What then but native perversity,
“a cantankerous wrongheadedness”’ (perversa contentio), could
have induced these worthies to insist on producing a text of their
own? (2) Jerome had just returned to Rome from Constanti-
nople, where, as he tells us, the recension of Lucian was accepted.
Now, if we accept the suggestion (cf. p. 102 ff.) that the MSS. with
which Constantine had provided his new capital represented the
fam. @ text, the Lucianic text must have been a recent importation.
Inevitably, then, there would have been some conservatives at
Constantinople who grumbled at the innovation; and these
might have very pertinently appealed to the Old Syriac (multarum
gentium lingus scriptura antea translata, doceat falsa esse quae
addita sunt), as evidence that the many striking passages absent
from both fam. © and Syr S. (cf. p. 88) but found in the Lucianic
text, were interpolations. If Jerome had heard from someone at
Constantinople some general statement to this effect, it would
only confirm his a priori suspicion of anyone who dared to think
he could improve upon Origen’s text of the LXX, and, with his
hasty temperament, he would forthwith conclude—without any
really careful study—that Lucian’s temerity had had equally

1 Cf. passages quoted by Swete, op. cit. p. 76 f.

592 THE FOUR GOSPELS APP. IV

fatal results on the New Testament. Nor would he wait
for further evidence before including Lucian’s fellow offender,
Hesychius, in the same sweeping condemnation.

The question, however, in regard to which we should have
liked Jerome to have made a clear statement is the type
of text represented by those ancient MSS. which he himself
so much preferred. Can we identify the Greek text which
Jerome preferred ? The materials on which an answer to this
question must be based are collected in Wordsworth and White’s
edition of the Vulgate Gospels and Acts.+

(1) In his Commentary on Matthew Jerome seven times
discusses various readings in MSS. known to him. Each time
he quotes with approval a reading found in x. In two of the
seven readings δὶ differs from B, and in two of them it differs
from fam. Θ. The fact that Jerome had a MS. agreeing with &
seven times out of seven would, even if it stood alone, be a
remarkable coincidence. But it does not stand alone.

(2) When in the Acts Jerome departs from the text of the
Old Latin version, two-thirds of his alterations are in the direction
of agreement with the Alexandrian text which for Acts is repre-
sented by Bs AC. Where δὶ and B differ he usually goes with
the one which is backed by the other MSS. of the family ; but
six times he agrees with & alone, but only twice (sic) with B alone.

(3) For the Gospels Wordsworth and White give (p. 665)
a table showing 39 readings, in which Jerome’s Vulgate agrees
with extant Greek MSS. against the Old Latin. Of these 25
are found in one or more of the MSS. Ν᾿ ΒΤ, ΔΕ. but the
significance of this figure is altered when we note that only 11
of the 25 seem to be exclusively Alexandrian readings.

Everything, however, depends on their estimate of Codex f
(Brixianus), the text of which is a sort of half-way house between
that of Old Latin MSS. of the type of ὃ and the Byzantine.
In f occur a very large number of readings in which Jerome’s

1 Wordsworth and White, Nov. Test. Lat. sec. ed. S. Hieronymi (Oxford,
1889-98, 1905).

arr.tv JHROME AND THE CODEX SINAITICUS 593

text and the Byzantine agree against the other Old Latin
MSS. Wordsworth and White hold that the Latin MSS. which
Jerome started with before he began his revision must have had
a text very similar to f; that is to say, that Jerome used a
form of the Old Latin version which had already been partially
revised by Greek MSS. of the Byzantine type. They conclude
that the Greek MSS. which he employed must have been of the
Ν BL type, but most closely related to x.

On this view most of the agreements of the Vulgate and the
Byzantine text were due, not to Jerome, but to the previous
revision by an unknown person which is most nearly represented
by f. Burkitt, on the other hand (J.7.S. i. p. 129), thinks that
the Old Latin which Jerome attempted to revise was more like ὦ.
The agreements between the Vulgate and f he explains on the
hypothesis that f is a text very largely Vulgate which has been
copied from the Latin side of a bilingual Gothic-Latin MS., the
Latin text of which had been sometimes conformed to that of
the Gothic. I cannot pretend to the knowledge of the Old
Latin version which would entitle me to express an opinion
on this controversy. I believe, however, that the majority of
experts incline to Burkitt’s view.

But if f is, not the parent of Jerome’s version, but its child,
and is therefore not to be reckoned as an Old Latin MS. at all,
then, so ἴδ. 88 the Vulgate Gospels are concerned, the case for
Jerome’s use of MSS. of the 8 B L type collapses. As Wordsworth
and White point out (p. 671), from Luke xvii. to the end of the
Gospel, and in a large part of John, Jerome’s alterations of the Old
Latin are almost entirely into conformity with the later Greek
MSS. ; and they cite 27 instances of the same thing for Matthew,
Mark, and the earlier part of Luke. It would look then as if the
MSS. used by Jerome had a text something like A—mainly
Lucianic but with a sprinkling of Alexandrian and other earlier
readings. That Jerome, without knowing tt, should have used a
text almost identical with the Lucianic recension, about which he

is so scornful, is really funny. I can only suppose that one of the
2Q

ὅ94 THE FOUR GOSPELS APP. IV

MSS. he possessed looked so old that he imagined it antedated
Lucian.

There still remains, however, the far more impressive evidence
quoted above that, in his Commentary on Matthew and in his
revision of the Acts, Jerome used a text akin to. I suggest that
this is to be explained by his visit to Alexandria, which took place
in 386, that is, between the publication of the Vulgate Gospels and
the work on Matthew.! At Alexandria he listened with enthusiasm
to the lectures of the famous Origenist teacher Didymus. What
more likely, then, than that he should seize the upportunity to
acquire a copy of the N.T. in the text which the school of Origen
approved. I would relate this surmise to three facts. (a) Our
actual MS. δὲ was, perhaps, forty years old when Jerome was in
Alexandria; (b) Jerome died at Bethlehem in 420; (c) not
many years later δὲ was in Palestine in the library at Caesarea.
This we learn from a marginal note by a (probably) fifth-
century corrector, who says that he collated some parts of the
Old Testament with the autograph of Pamphilus which was there
preserved. Historically, therefore, there is no difficulty in sup-
posing that δαὶ was brought to Palestine by Jerome.

The hypothesis that our δ was actually one of the MSS.
used by Jerome would remove a great difficulty. In Jerome’s
Commentary on Matthew, in addition to the seven variants
alluded to above, there is a long discussion of the reading
οὐδὲ ὁ υἷος, Mt. xxiv. 36. Jerome asserts that the words were
absent from the approved copies of Origen and Pierius. But
we know that as a matter of fact the words in question did
stand in the text used by Origen. For Origen, in his Commentary
on Matthew, discusses at considerable length the theological
difficulty raised by them. He gives two alternative ways of
meeting it; but he never suggests, as he does elsewhere under
similar circumstances, that he knew of any MS. which omitted

1 Whether his revision of the Acts and Epistles took place before or after the
visit to Alexandria is unknown. His text of the Catholic Epistles is closely
allied to that of A.

arr.iv JEROME AND THE CODEX SINAITICUS 595

the offending words. Moreover, we have other evidence that
they stood in all the texts likely to have been known to Origen ;
for they occur, not only in Bx Ὁ Old Lat., but also in 13 &c.,
28, Φ Arm., from which we may presume their presence in the
text of fam. ©. But if Jerome used x, and supposed it to
represent the text of Origen and Pierius, his statement is
explained ; for although the words οὐδὲ ὁ υἷος were written by
the original scribe, they were deleted by a very early corrector.

The deletion was made—according to the usual practice—
by a row of dots above the word. A subsequent corrector has
erased the dots. δαὶ was corrected by two scribes, who seem to
belong to the fifth century and whose corrections can usually be
distinguished by minute differences in handwriting and in the
colour of the ink they used. Buta row of dots, all but obliterated,
cannot by these criteria be assigned to one corrector rather than
another. And Tischendorf, in the notes to his four-volume
edition of &, in assigning the dots to the corrector 8“, and their
erasure to his successor δ Ὁ, does so with the qualification ut
videtur. So far as I can see, there is no reason for identifying
the person who deleted οὐδὲ ὁ υἷος with the corrector 8%, except
that x was the first systematic reviser who worked on the MS.
after the original διορθωτής. But this particular reading was
one which might well have stimulated the activity of an earlier
owner of the MS. who was not concerned to revise it throughout.
Origen had already found the words theologically embarrassing ;
during the Arian controversy the Son’s knowledge of the Father
was near the centre of the point at issue; the words are not
found in Syr. 8. nor in the Byzantine text; what is even more
significant, they are absent from L 33 and from both the Egyptian
versions. That is to say, we have evidence that even in Egypt,
the home of the Bw: text, the words were being discredited
as an heretical interpolation. I suggest, therefore, that the
deletion in 8 was made when the Arian controversy was at its
height, and, therefore, before the time of Jerome. Indeed, even
if the MS. used by Jerome was not δὲ itself but a sister MS.,

596 THE FOUR GOSPELS APP. IV

the probability that the words in question had there also been
deleted is by no means low.

On the only other occasion on which Jerome refers to the
copies of Origen, the reading quoted (Gal. iii. 1) as Origen’s is
one supported by B 8 against the great majority of Greek MSS.
This affords some evidence for the view that Jerome regarded
the type of text represented by δὶ as that approved by Origen.
But if so, we must ask the question: How exactly did he
connect his MSS. with those of Origen? I would hazard
the suggestion that Jerome’s phrase exemplaria Adamantii et
Pier (Adamantius was a second name of Origen) does not
mean two different codices, any more than the text of Westcott
and Hort means two different editions. Pierius may well have
attempted to popularise the text of the Gospels on which Origen
lectured, much in the same way as Pamphilus did for the LXX
column of the Hexapla. In favour of this view two considera-
tions may be advanced. (a) Origen stoutly affirms his belief
that the Shepherd of Hermas is an inspired work ; Athanasius
definitely excludes it from the Canon. Now »& contains the
Shepherd ; whether B also did we do not know, as the end of
the MS. is missing. (Ὁ) 8 is written in four columns to the
page, B in three, A in two, C in only one—which last became
the common type, though two is not unusual. The larger
number of columns reproduces the format of the papyrus roll
which preceded the codex; B is transitional; δὲ represents the
most antiquated style of all. Thus, though it is slightly the
younger MS., in this respect δα reproduces an older tradition
than B. This would be accounted for if δὶ was a conservative
copy of a MS. of Pierius.

The conjecture that s represents the recension of Pierius is
in no way incompatible with the view that B represents that
of Hesychius. Hort’s arguments, especially if supplemented

1 W.H. ii. p. 213 ff. Itis worth noting that K. Lake, in his Introduction

to the facsimile reproduction of N, refutes Tischendorf’s suggestion (here
alluded to by Hort) that a portion of B and δὲ were written by the same scribe.

Ἄρριῖν JHROME AND THE CODEX SINAITICUS 597

by a study of the immense list of minute differences between
B and δὶ drawn up by Hoskier,! makes it difficult to accept
von Soden’s view that their common ancestor was at all recent.
It is more probable that they represent, either two independent
traditions of the oldest text of Alexandria, or recensions by
two scholars each of whom based his text on the oldest MSS.
obtainable in Egypt.

1 Codex B and its Allies, pt. ii. (Quaritch, 1914).

INDICES

599

INDEX OF MSS.
With dates and von Soden’s notation.

NV.B.—The Roman numeral indicates the century to which a ΜΒ. is assigned ;
the number in brackets represents von Soden’s notation.

Only the more important citations of δὲ BC Ὁ 1, and Syr. S. are indexed ;
but to other mss. all references (except those occurring in the Tables pp. 83,
90, 97 f., 108, 582 ff, 586 ff.) are included.

The accepted Latin titles of all uncials are given ; but, as it is rare for any
Codex other than 8 A BOD L (and perhaps a, ὃ, k, e, 7, 732) to be so cited, they
need not be memorised by the student.

GREEK UNCIALS

N Sinaiticus (8 2) iv . : . 80ff., 40, 42f., 48, δ4 ff, 58f, 61 ff,
79, 82, 86, 93 f., 96, 99, 103, 107, 115,
117 ἣν 121, 127, 182, 184 f., 145 1
171, 181, 276, 300, 308, 327 ff., 335,
337, 414, 571 f., 585, 589, 592 ff,
595 ff., and passim

Soar : : é . 62

Ne ᾿ : ‘ . 62, 105, 492, 578

Scag ss - . A . 578, 595

Ne, Ἶ ' . 62, 595

A Alexandrinus (ὃ 4) v : . 80, 48, 48, 69, 119 ff., 276, 842, 567 f.,
! 570, 577, 579, 590 ff.

B Vaticanus (ὃ 1) iv . : . 80 ff., 87 f., 42, 48, 54 ff., 57-63, 82,

85 f., 88 f., 98 f., 96, 99, 103, 107,
115, 117 f., 121, 124 ἢ, 127, 182 ff,
144 ff, 177 »., 181, 275 £., 300, 308,
327 ff., 335, 337, 572, 585, 589, 592 ff.,
and passim
C Ephraemi rescriptus (ὃ 3) v . 80, 48, 48, 56, 59 f., 62 f., 85, 91, 93 f.,
107, 118, 121, 122 π., 125, 241, 280,
308 #f., 313, 317, 342, 410, 592, 596
D Bezae (ὃ δὴ) v-vi- 5 . 11, 30f., 87 f., 42, 48, 56, 67 ff., 82, 84,
94, 104, 106 f., 115 ff, 133 ἢ, 136,
140 ff., 181, 233, 308, 318, 330, 342,
404, 580, 585, 589, 595, and passim
E Basiliensis (ε 65) viii ᾿ . 80, 49, 120 f., 147 π., 568
601

602

F Boreeli (ε 86) ix

G Wolfit A (ε 87) ix-x
H Woljii B (¢ 88) ix-x
KK Cyprius (ε 71) ix

L Regius (€ 56) viii

M Campianus (ε 72) ix

N Purpureus Petropolitanus (ε 19) vi
O Sinopensis (ε 21) vi (frags. Mt.) .
P Guelpherbytanus A (ε 88) vi (frags.)
Q Guelpherbytanus B (ε 4) v (frags.) .
R Mitriensis (ε 22) vi ( ie Lk.)

S Vaticanus 354 (€ 1027)

T Borgianus (ε 5) v cats Lk. Jn. ii
U Nanianus (ε 90) ix-x :
V Mosquensis (€ 75) ix

W (Freer Ms.) (€ 014) iv-vi

X Monecensis (A*)x .

Y Macedonianus (ε 073) ix

Z Dublinensis (ε 26) vi (frags. Mt.)
T Tischendorfianus IV (ε 10) ix-x
A Sangallensis (ε 76) ix-x

@ (Koridethi ms.) (€ 050) vii-ix

A Tischendorfianus 111] (ε 17) ix-x
ἘΙ, Zacynthius (A*) viii (frags. Lk.)
II Petropolitanus (ε 18) ix

= Rossanensis (€ 18) vi

@ Beratinus (ε 17) vi .

W Laurensis (ὃ 6) viii

Ὁ Dionysiacus (ε 61) ix-x
047 Andreensis (€95)(formerly y) x
O89 (ε 28) (=Tisch. 6°) vi (frag.) .
0106 (ε 40) (=Tisch. ©) vii (frag.)

THE FOUR GOSPELS

49, 120

120, 311

120, 346, 578 [.

42, 48, 54ff., 59 f., 62f., 107, 117 f., 121,
126 f., 184, 145, 308, 592 f., and passim

575, 578 f.

81 η., 89, 326, 575 ff.

576 fi.

56 π., 580

56 π., 312, 567 f., 580

120 f., 147 n.

54 f., 56 ., 99, 213

122 »., 326, 579 ff.

120 f., 147 n.

11, 80, 32, 40, 48, 68 #f., 107, 128, 188,
145, 302, 309, 311, 315, 323, 326, 337,
342, 351, 567 f., 580

56 n., 64, 326, 492

346, 488, 579

56 n.

122 n., 567, 580

42, 56, 59, 62 f, 68 n., 85, 98 f., 107,
125, 312, 315, 326, 574, 580 n., 592

82, 42, 48 ff, 79-107, 116 ff, 132, 138,
144 n., 145 f., 308, 316, 318 n., 322,
327, 8386, 345, 573 ff., 579 ff., 585,
589, 591 f., 595, and passim

49, 579 ff.

56 n., 59, 567

120, 578 f.

81 n., 575 ff., 586

122 π., 136, 241, 312, 575 ff., 595

56, 59, 62f., 85, 107, 116, 125 f., 386,
342, 567 ἢ,

120 f., 147 n.

116

580 n.

315

GREEK MINUSCULES (CURSIVES)

1 (8 254) xi-xii

13 (ε 368) xiii

46, 50, 75, 80, 81 π., 86 ff, 94 n., 124,
280, 812, 315 f., 820, 322 f, 335 π.,
567 f., 570, 578, 576 f., 579, 585

46, 49 ἢ, 78, 75, 80, 81 π., 82 n., 86 ff,
100, 106, 120, 144 m, 811 f, 314 ἢ,
822 ff. 326, 410, 570, 578 ff., 585, 595

INDEX

22 (ε 288) xii
28 (ε 168) xi-xii

33 (δ 48) ix-x

69 (ὃ 505) xv

118 (ε 346) xiii
124 (ε 1211) xii
131 (δ 467) xiv-xv .
157 (ε 207) xii

162 (€ 214) xii

164 (ε 116) xi

209 (8 457) xiv

230 (ε 178) xi

301 (A?) xiii

346 (ε 226) xii

478 (ε 1390) (=Scriv. 512) 3 xi

543 (ε 257) (=Scriv. 556) xii

544 (ε 337) xiii

565 Theodorae Toporettice (ε 93)
(=Tisch. 2P°, Hort 81,
Scriv. 473) ix

566 (ε 77) ix ‘
579 (ε 376) (=Seriv. 743) xili

700 (ε 133) (=Scriv. 604) xi-xii

788 (ε 1033) xi

826 (ε 218) xii

828 (ε 219) xii

872 (ε 203) xii

892 (ε 1016) ix-x

983 (ε 3017) xiii
1071 (ε 1279) xii
1241 (ε 1370) xii-xiii
1278 (ε 277) xii
1424 (ὃ 30) (formerly 9) x
1555 (ε 1341) xiii
1582 (€ 183) x
1604 (ε 1353) xiii
1689 (ε 1054) xii
1709 (ε 1053 (?)) ? xiv
2193 (€ 1131) xi

OF MSS. 603

34 n., 80 n., 88 f., 579, 585

42, 50, 75, 80, 86 ff., 172 π., 570, 585,
595

49, 56, 59f., 62f., 85, 91, 104”, 118,
125, 212 n., 250 n., 308, 310, 312, 315,
319, 326, 567 f., 577, 595

49, 80, 86 f., 308, 312, 828, 412, 568,
585

80 n.

80, 86, 144 n., 309, 316 f., 533 n, 585

80 π.

49, 56 n., 76 n., 104 n., 176, 280, 415,
568, 570, 580

277

310

80 n.

310

80, 86 f., 583 n., 574, 585

488

80 n., 87

94 n., 288, 578

49 f., 64, 73, 75, 81, 86 ff., 105, 123,
809 f., 317, 322 f., 326, 574 f., 585

48, 49 n.

50, 56 n., 62 f., 85, 118, 128, 125 f., 138,
177 n., 309, 312, 326, 336, 567 f., 571

82, 50, 75, 81, 85 f., 88, 277, 309, 312,
317 f., 322, 326, 567 f., 570, 574, 576,
585

80 n.

80 n., 87, 574

80 n., 87, 574, 577

80 n.

56 n., 62

80, 586

89, 322, 580

56 π.

80 n., 81 n.

81, 84, 88 f., 519, 573, 575 ff., 586

415

80, 88 f., 124, 335 n.

87 f., 580

80 n.

80 π.

80 n., 89

604 THE FOUR GOSPELS

MSS. or OLp LATIN VERSION

a Vercellensis iv

b Veronensis v

c Colbertinus xii

d =Latin side of D
6 Palatinus v .

f Brixianus vi
ff Corbeiensis Ix
ff? Corbeiensis II γ-νὶ.

g& Sangermanensis I ix
3:2 Sangermanensis 11 x-xi

ἢ Claromontanus vi (Vulgate in Mk.

Lk. Jn.) .
i Vindobonensts v-vi
Kk Bobiensis iv-v

I Rehdigeranus vii

m = The Speculum

n Frag. Sangallensia iv-v
ᾳ Monacensis vii

r Usserianus vi .

ὃ =Latin of A

66, 70, 88 f., 106 ἢ, 116, 138, 141 x.,
143 ff., 170, 250 π., 267, 280, 308 f.,
311 ff., 819 f., 323, 326

65 f., 70, 89, 106 f.,116, 1387 ἢ, 141 πὸ.
148 ff., 267 f., 280, 308 f., 311, 319,
822 f., 525, 592 f.

55 n., 65, 116, 188, 141 π., 143, 250 x.,
267, 309, 311, 313, 319 f., 322, 324

68 n.

65, 66 n., 69, 88, 107, 116, 138, 141 π.,
143 ff., 212 »., 268, 308 f., 311, 315,
817, 319 f., 323, 326 f., 881 x.

66, 89, 141 π., 311, 326, 592 f.

319

66, 116, 143, 145, 267, 309, 311, 313,
323

137

319

66, 70, 144, 322

66, 319 f., 323

45 f., 65 f., 69, 71, 88, 106 f., 125 n.,
132, 141 n., 144 f., 170, 250 n., 276 n.,
280, 308, 311 ff., 316, 826 f., 336
842

818, 319, 322 f.

66, 70, 89, 311

66, 313, 317

68 n.

MSS. or Oxp Syriac VERSION

Syr. Ὁ. (sy*) Curetonian v

Syr. 8. (sy’) Sinaitic iv

73, 76, 87, 89 f., 115, 117 f., 122 m,
136 ff., 141 π., 241, 250 π., 276, 818,
816, 317, 819 f., 327, 568

32, 71, 73f., 79, 85-90, 106 f., 115 ff,
132, 135 ff, 308, 335, 846, 519 f., 591,
595, and passim

The remaining citations (and dates) refer, not to individual MSS.,
but to Versions

AETHIOPIC

Aeth. 7? v

336

INDEX OF MSS. 605

ARMENIAN

76, 85 ff., 104 f., 115, 137 f., 241, 311 f,,

Arm. v
320, 822, 326, 335, 344 ff, 595

EGYPTIAN
Boh. (bo) Bohairic (=Tisch. cop,
Hort me) vi : : . 54, 59,121, 125, 309, 312, $24, 326, 336
Sah. (sa) Sahidic (=Hort the)? iii . 54, 56, 59, 125, 309, 312, 317, 323 ἔ,, 326,
336
GOTHIC
Goth.iv. : ; . 66n., 114, 311

OLD GEORGIAN

Georg.? v . : : . 80 ἢν, Sob

LATER SYRIAC

Syr. Hcl. (sy") Harclean (=Tisch.
syr?) vii . 5
Syr. Hier. (pa) eran vi

Syr. Pesh. (sy?) Peshitta (= Tisch.
syr.%b-) v, : "ΠΥ; δ.

76, 12. n., 241, 326, 336
55 n., 76, 100, 325, 336

LATIN VULGATE

Vulg. (vg) iv. : 1 18}, 590 ff.

INDEX OF

Acts and Galatians, harmony of, 545.
See also Judaistic controversy

Addai, doctrine of, 489 n.

Adysh MS., 88, 90, 335 n.

“ Agglomeration,” 166 f., 192 f., 265

Agrapha, 241 ἢ.

Allegorical method, 585

Alogi, the, 437 f., 440

Anti-Christ legend, 492 ff., 517 ff.,
522 f., 540

Apocalyptic in the Gospels, 20, 167,
215, 255, 263, 292, 416, 425, 451,
466, 468, 474 ff., 491 ff., 516 ff.,
520. See also under St. John

Apostolic Constitutions, 120 n., 446,
508, 533

Arianism, 595

Assimilation, 38, 181, 275 ff., 302, 321,
326 f., 570, Ch. VI.

Barnabas, Epistle of, 502, 508
Benedictus, the, 266

Canon, evolution of Gospel, 526 f.
evolution of Pauline, 499 n., 526 f.
formation of, 3 ff., 11, 14, 30, 269,

341, 461 n.
purpose of, 501

Canons of criticism. See Criticism

Chalcedon, Council of, 105

Chanmeti Fragments, 90

Chronology, Synoptists and Fourth

Gospel, 9, 20, 392; 416 ff., Ch. XIV.

Clementine Homilies, 258 n.

Collections for the Saints, 545, 554, 557

Colophons, 49, 262

Conflation, 192 f., 246 ff, 249 n.

Criticism, principles of, 15 ff., 19, 22f.,

34, 39, 49, 59, 61, 107, 111, 121 ff.,
131 ff., 139, 146 ff., 157, 170, 191 ff.,
227, 239, 275 ff., 306 ff., 328, 330,
541, 560, 565 ff., 569

SUBJECTS

Criticism (contd. )—
some important canons of, 44, 50,
64, 107, 131 f£., 185 £., 145 £., 158,
180 f., 208, 210, 222, 249, 307, 331,
378, 570
Crucifixion, date of, 422 f.
Cursives and Uncials, 48

De Boor fragment, 340 n., 434 f., 452

Development in N.T. theology, 374,
425, 440 ff., 456 f., 465 ff., 479, 495,
544, 556. See also Logos and St.
John, Apocalyptic in

Diatessaron. See Tatian

Didache, 284, 288, 292, 368, 453, 507 ff.,
519, 523

Dittography, 86, 568

Docetists, 174, 341, 354, 385 f., 389,
515

Double attestation, 270

Easter, date of, 440, 453
Eastern non-interpolations, 330
Ebionites, 437, 515
Elder, the, 18, 20 f.
the Elder
Elders, Sayings of the, 450 n.
Memoirs of the Elder
Episcopate, 466
Epistula Apostolorum, 70, 348, 436

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The four Gospels;"

See other formats